Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

North Western Regional Health Authority

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about funding and staff shortages in the North Western regional health authority.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): A number of hon. Members have made representations on financial and staffing resources in the region. I am glad to be able to announce today that we have agreed the region's proposed allocation of additional funds for 1987–88 from the special fund announced by my right hon. Friend last November. This will give an additional £435,000 to north Manchester, £290,000 to central Manchester, £73,000 to south Manchester, £246,000 to Salford and £11,000 to Tameside and Glossop. In that part of the north-west covered by Mersey health region, there will be £400,000 extra for Liverpool, £200,000 for St. Helens and Knowsley, and £200,000 for south Sefton.

Mr. Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that, at a recent meeting of the north-west regional community health councils, each body complained about under-funding and staff shortages? Will the Minister admit that, even with the moneys that he announced today, central Manchester region is still talking about cutting one ward out of existence and that south Manchester still has a nursing shortage that has been described as dangerous? Will the Minister come clean with the House and say that not enough money is going into the Health Service in the north-west region and that we need more money, or will he admit that the Government's priorities are tax cuts and not ill people?

Mr. Newton: One of the Government's priorities has been to ensure the fairer distribution of NHS resources around the country. The north-west region and, indeed, the Mersey region have significantly gained from the Government's policies. The additional money that I announced today has been designed to help and will help transitional problems.

Mr. Silvester: May I stress that not all hon. Members wish to carp at the Minister's announcement, but that some sincerely thank him for it? It is in addition to a substantial capital increase in the north-west, which is several percentage points above the level of the nation as a whole.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Within the last six months, since I have been Minister, I have laid the foundation stone for a £35 million development at the Manchester royal infirmary, and last week I announced a project costing nearly £20 million for a new North Manchester general hospital.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister explain how the money that he announced today — which is obviously welcome — will help Manchester children's hospital? A substantial number of children await bone marrow transplant operations, which they cannot have because of a lack of nursing staff. Will the extra money mean that nurses are available to ensure that such essential work can be carried out?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that not all the problems are financial but that there is also a nursing shortage. We are examining that problem. We have looked at the problem in some parts of the north-west with a view to trying to determine appropriate action.

Mr. Hind: I congratulate my hon. Friend on providing treatment for an extra 22,000 patients in the north-west as a consequence of his announcement. May I impress upon him that my constituents in west Lancashire are grateful for the £118,000 that will provide 300 additional hip replacements in the next 12 months. It will tackle one of the major problems in our part of the world—that is, hip replacement surgery.

Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed. I emphasise that the allocations that I announced today are separate from the waiting list allocations, which will also do a great deal to help throughout the north-west.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that. by the criteria laid down by his predecessor in a parliamentary answer, compared with 1979–80 the north western region is now cumulatively £31 million short of what it should have received? Will he also confirm that the unpublished waiting list figures held by the north western region show an increase and that the Preston health authority now has the fourth longest waiting list in the country? Finally, will he confirm the rumour that at Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport on the evening of Tuesday of last week six emergency operations had to be delayed because no nurses were available to work in the theatre?

Mr. Newton: I can confirm that I am tired of hearing this kind of stuff from one of the hon. Members whose Government left the longest waiting lists in history.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my hon. Friend confirm that spending on the National Health Service in the north-west is higher than it has ever been before? If it is cuts that people are interested in, will he point out to Opposition Members the figures for 1977, when the Labour Government inflicted the worst cuts known in the history of the National Health Service?

Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed, and I can certainly confirm that the steady increase in the money made available to the north-west makes the spending there the highest in history.

Severe Disability Premium

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he has recently taken concerning the severe disability premium; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. John Major): I had a constructive meeting with the disablement organisations on 21 January. They put to me alternative proposals for the treatment of the most severely disabled people under income support which, without commitment, we are currently considering. Officials will be carrying this discussion further later this week.

Mr. Wainwright: When the Minister considers these powerful representations, will he bear in mind that the present conditions that he has laid down are intolerably restrictive, limiting this premium to a handful of people who persist in living alone, despite requiring almost constant attendance? Does he realise that this makes a mockery of the presumptuous title "severe disability premium"?

Mr. Major: I do not accept that only a handful of people are involved. Our estimate is that about 8,000 people will receive the premium. The severe disability premium will be paid on top of the normal disability premium, and it will be a fairly substantial sum.

Mr. Hannam: When considering the problem of the severely disabled who at present receive an accumulation of additional allowances and payments that exceed the new disability premium and the other premium, has my hon. Friend considered the idea put forward by DHSS local managers for operation of the social fund in a flexible way to make sure that severely disabled people get the right amount of money that they need?

Mr. Major: I am considering a variety of alternative methods. In the case of those severely disabled people who are receiving a large number of additional requirement payments, the transitional protection will secure their cash position, but in respect of those who are receiving large amounts of domestic assistance addition, that transitional protection will itself be protected against inflation.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that the most severely disabled people, many of whom are practically paralysed, cannot live alone because they must have someone to care for them, yet they are the very people whom the Government say cannot receive the severe disability premium, just because they are receiving an attendance allowance? That is absolute nonsense. Will the Minister therefore accept the simple and logical proposition that the most severely disabled people should receive the severe disability premium?

Mr. Major: The severe disability premium is intended for the most severely disabled. The right hon. Gentleman commented on the particular circumstances in which the premium will be payable. These matters are under discussion at present with the disability organisations.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware that the voluntary organisations have again expressed this week their deep and continuing concern about the most severely disabled people trying to live alone when the domestic care addition disappears? As he knows, it is new applicants who cause the greatest concern. They face loss of independence without the domestic care addition. Is there anything further that the Minister can say today about their plight?

Mr. Major: There is nothing further that I can say today, except to acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that of particular concern are the future disabled people who would have received

domestic assistance allowance and the large number of additional requirements. It is precisely that rather narrow body of people whom we are most concerned to protect, and who are the subject of my present conversations with the disability allowance group and others.

Ministerial Responsibilities

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to review the responsibilities within his Department of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie); and if he will make a statment.

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to review the responsibility within his Department of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie.)

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will re-allocate the responsibilies currently exercised within his Department by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie).

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): No, Sir.

Mr. Winnick: This is meant to be helpful — [Interruption.] Have not some of the comments by the hon. Lady since becoming the junior Minister in his Department been quite extraordinary? Did the Prime Minister have some sort of grudge against the Secretary of State and decide to punish him by putting that somewhat publicity-crazed person into his Department?

Mr. Fowler: The real position is that a successful politican such as my hon. Friend, says what everybody is thinking, while an unsuccessful politican, such as the hon. Gentleman, says what nobody is thinking, or would ever think.

Mr. Lofthouse: Considering the many foolish utterances by the hon. Lady, can the Secretary of State tell the House why she is so popular among her Tory colleagues?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is popular among her colleagues, and up and down the country.

Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that in tabling such questions, Opposition Members are suffering from an excess of sour grapes? One must have just a little sympathy with them because there is no one on the Opposition Front Bench who has the energy, clarity and ability to hit the headlines like my hon. Friend.

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As for the criticism of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, given what the Prime Minister has had to put up with from Opposition Members, it goes considerably further than sour grapes.

Sir George Young: Is it not typical of the sexist attitudes of many Opposition Members that they gun for one of the few women Ministers in the Government?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. I know of his interest in health education and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has put that firmly on the map.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that I applaud the statement made by his junior Minister that smoking is dirty and smelly? In the light of that and


because it appears to be the view of the entire Department, will the Secretary of State take the time to persuade his colleagues in the Department of the Environment that the only way to deal with smoking is to stop advertising it, and to allow people to make a choice and not to influence them in all their activities by advertising campaigns? Lastly—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is clearly about the Minister and not about her statement.

Mr. Fowler: I think that I answered that question from the hon. Gentleman the last time that we had social security questions. The fact is that we have a voluntary code on advertising in this country. That has applied under this and the previous Government and it is the most effective way of dealing with the problems.

North-East Thames Health Region (Waiting List Fund)

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the allocation of the waiting list fund within the north-east Thames health region.

Mr. Newton: The north-east Thames regional health authority will receive £2·07 million from the first year's allocation of the fund. That will enable hospitals in the region to treat an additional 7,000 waiting list cases through at least 25 separate projects.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is the Minister aware that because of local and staff anxiety about the future of St. Margaret's hospital in Epping, the money that is being made available is much appreciated? Does he agree that that will result in a considerable cut in waiting time for operations, notably in oral surgery and ear, nose and throat cases?

Mr. Newton: Yes, the £92,000 that is being made available for west Essex will finance three projects and will enable over 1,000 cases to be treated. In addition, the district is planning improvements within its existing resources, including a 41 per cent. reduction in the children's ear, nose and throat waiting list by September of this year. That is a considerable prospect of progress.

Mr. Squire: The people of Havering will welcome my hon. Friend's statement because they too will benefit within that region. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable for people to have to wait up to two years for orthopaedic operations, as some must do? Will he join me in hoping that there will be a substantial reduction in the waiting list as a result of the announcement?

Mr. Newton: Indeed, I would expect that reduction. Barking, Havering and Brentwood are receiving over £450,000 from the allocation which will finance six projects, enabling the treatment of more than 2,000 extra in-patient cases in orthopaedics and ENT. That is in addition to improvements in existing resources, including the treatment of up to 1,600 additional cases in orthopaedics and general surgery.

Diabetics

Mr. Hirst: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received regarding the care and treatment of diabetics.

Mr. Newton: Representations have been received from the British Diabetic Association, right hon. and hon. Members and members of the public about provision on general practitioner prescription of disposable syringes and blood glucose monitoring strips for diabetics. I announced last Tuesday that we have decided to make disposable syringes available on prescription from general practitioners.

Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply and as the parent of a diabetic child may I say how much I welcomed last week's announcement? However, may I emphasize to him the importance of diabetics' maintaining effective control over their blood glucose level? In view of that can he hold out any hope that blood glucose monitoring strips may one day be available on prescription?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful for the first half of my hon. Friend's remarks and I pay tribute to the part that he has played in the campaign that has contributed to this decision. Last Tuesday I said that we would like to make blood glucose monitoring strips available on prescription when the resources become available, but at this moment I cannot give an absolute undertaking when that will be.

Mr. Beith: While I warmly welcomed the Minister's decision, may I say that some diabetics resented the impression that was given the following day that their syringes alone necessitated the increase in prescription charges? Will he seek to dispel that impression and to make it clear that diabetics are as entitled as other disadvantaged groups to benefit from the Health Service and his welcome decision?

Mr. Newton: Yes, I certainly wish to dispel that impression. There is no gainsaying the fact that the resources that enable us to undertake welcome developments must be found somewhere. Obviously, part of those resources are the yield from prescription charges.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that adequate funding for biochemistry departments in hospitals is absolutely essential to ensure that diabetic testing is freely available and that prompt results can be reported to general practitioners for the benefit of patients? Furthermore, is he aware that for some of the newer techniques expensive re-agents are necessary and are used to help test unstable sugar levels in the blood of patients? They are expensive, but considered to be vital in the treatment of diabetics by general practitioners. Will my hon. Friend encourage their use?

Mr. Newton: As I have said, we are always sympathetic and we have shown that clearly and practically in the past week in the development of services for diabetics. I certainly take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Bed and Breakfast Accommodation (Ealing)

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much his Department is spending on bed and breakfast accommodation in the London borough of Ealing; what was the comparable figure at the beginning of May 1986; how many people and families are involved in each figure; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): Information in the precise form requested is not held centrally. However,


I can tell my hon. Friend that the number of families housed in bed and breakfast accommodation in the London borough of Ealing rose from 53 at the end of March 1986 to 375 at the end of September 1986.

Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the new Ealing Labour-controlled council has abolished residence points for people born and bred in Ealing and for those who have lived there for two years? It has forced up the bed and breakfast list from 30, costing £300 a year when the council came to office in May 1986, to an estimated 1,000 costing £5 million in April 1988. The council has created a spurious housing list, drawing people from all over the country on to it. Even if every blade of grass in Ealing were built on, that list could never be met. Will my hon. and learned Friend sympathise with the people of Ealing who face a 65 per cent. rate increase? All council services, including essential services, are at a standstill because the council has quarrelled with its work force—which is on strike—and is threatening to put virtually everyone on the street.

Mr. Lyell: The costly and inappropriate policies of the London borough of Ealing are becoming well known. The code of guidance, which is issued by the Department of the Environment, emphasises that bed and breakfast accommodation should be used as a last resort and for as short a period as possible.

Mr. Dobson: Can the Minister confirm that there has been an increase in the number of people accepted as homeless by the London borough of Ealing since the change in control of the council? Will he confirm that no Minister challenges the decisions of the London borough of Ealing and that those people have been properly accepted as homeless under the terms of the legislation, which is binding upon the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues just as much as it is on the London borough of Ealing?

Mr. Lyell: I can confirm that the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for families with children is both costly and unsuitable. The guidance that is issued by the Department is that it should be used only as a last resort.

AIDS

Mr. John Townend: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement on the progress of the campaign to limit the spread of AIDS.

Mr. Fowler: Our objectives are to ensure that the public are given the facts about AIDS, the threat that it poses, how infection is transmitted and how the spread can be prevented. The results of the latest Gallup survey, which was commissioned by the Department, show encouraging progress towards these objectives. We are currently considering our strategy for the next stages of the campaign.

Mr. Townend: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is public concern that his campaign has been evenhanded between homosexual and hetrosexual activity, although the spread of AIDS has come, principally, through the homosexual community? Will he tell the House what proportion of those who, unfortunately, have died from the disease have been homosexuals? Does he

agree that the time has come to ban homosexual propaganda in schools, on television, in newspapers and in other forms of the media?

Mr. Fowler: As to schools, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. With regard to his major question, he is quite correct that the disease and the number of deaths have, predominately been among homosexuals. On the other hand, we must take account of the cases among drug users sharing needles and heterosexuals. We know that the AIDS virus can spread heterosexually, and therefore it is right that we should be prudent about the information that we give to the public on how we can prevent that.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is the Secretary of State aware that thus far the Select Committee on Social Services has identified certain sectors where much more help will be needed? Does he agree that there is an urgent need for many more clinical medical posts; an urgent need for many more counsellors to counsel patients; that there will shortly be an acute need for more hospice places and that there is an urgent need for the proper education of children in schools about how to avoid the AIDS disease?

Mr. Fowler: The Government look forward to the report of the Select Committee on Social Services. The Government have shown, by the resources that they have devoted to public education and research, the importance that they place on fighting the spread of this virus.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, even though the heterosexual community is at risk of AIDS contamination, the time has come for the Government to make it clear that by far the greatest degree of risk is posed by drug abusers and sexual perverts? Is it not about time that we concentrated on pointing out where the responsibility lies for the spread of this disease?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is correct in that the responsibility is an individual responsibility and, clearly, what he says about homosexuals and drug users is right. The next stages of the campaign will be directed specifically to those areas, as will advertising.

Mr. Duffy: Does the Secretary of State believe that exhortation, determent or even terror will be adequate? Those measures are not sufficing in the United States, where nearly 1·5 million people are infected, quite apart from the dead and dying. Does he not think that in the next stage of his campaign he should point out, without preaching, that there are moral choices available on behalf of the family and the community?

Mr. Fowler: Indeed. In the campaign we have always made it clear that it is not just safer but best to rely on a faithful, loving relationship and I have sought to make that clear at every stage. However, we need to say something more than that and to give direct and straightforward health education messages. I hope that, in addition to the Government's public education campaign, the churches will conduct their own campaigns. Those campaigns would be complementary and there is a need for them.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about his talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the best way to get the moral and the educational messages across, particularly to younger children?

Mr. Fowler: Just before the weekend, my right hon. Friend issued a new leaflet on AIDS for teachers, and he will also be providing video information for schools. Both he and I are absolutely determined that the dangers of the spread of AIDS are made known in a responsible way in the schools.

Doddington Hospital

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on the future of Doddington hospital; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I have received one letter from a member of the public. The Peterborough area will soon see the opening of a second new district general hospital at a cost of £13 million providing nearly 300 extra beds. As a result, the hospital authorities are now looking at plans which may involve a change of use for the county hospital at Doddington. That hospital currently provides acute services, but may in future become a community hospital, providing much-needed services for psychiatric and psychogeriatric patients in the area.

Mr. Freud: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but will she confirm that consultant cover will continue at Doddington hospital, as it is much appreciated by local doctors? Will she also bear in mind that my population of 65-year-olds is rising by 15 per cent. and that of 75-year-olds by 18 per cent. and consequently ensure that hospital facilities are available for people close to their homes? Will she also give her help to the primary health care teams that are desperately needed in a place with so little public transport?

Mrs. Currie: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can confirm that the out-patient services, which cover several of the types of specialties which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, such as general surgery, gynaecology, trauma orthopaedics, and so on, will continue and consultant cover will continue for them. I can also confirm that the figures for the growth in the elderly population in that neighbourhood are correct, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will confirm his interest in that matter as I believe that within the next 10 years he will be joining that group and therefore, like many of us, wishes to see services for the elderly improve.

Severe Weather Payments

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Social Service how many claims have been made for exceptionally severe weather payments; and what percentage of those eligible have so far made a claim.

Dr. McDonald: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many payments for exceptionally severe weather heating costs have been made in the current winter; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Major: Information on the total number of claims is not available, but by 3 February approximately 1·4 million £5 payments had been made. Some claimants will have received two of more payments. It is not possible to estimate take-up since full returns have not yet been received.

Mr. Eadie: I thank the Minister for that information, but can he be sure that people with the worst fuel bills will have claimed before the deadline period has been reached?

Will the Minister give the House an assurance that if there is any evidence that the deadline period is causing a problem he will consider extending it?

Mr. Major: The deadline period has not yet been reached. The period for claims is 13 weeks from the date of the week in which the payments fell due. That is largely to approximate with the fact that most fuel bills are rendered quarterly. The deadline will not be reached until early April, and I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that further claims are still coming in. I shall look at the situation in early April, but I can give no commitment on that.

Dr. McDonald: Is the Minister aware that pensioners in receipt of supplementary benefit, because of the requirement of the £500 limit, are forced to choose between keeping enough money in their savings accounts to bury themselves or heating themselves properly during their lifetime? Will he undertake now to review this £500 limit?

Mr. Major: The hon. Lady may care to bear in mind that we have already reviewed that level and increased it substantially from the £200 that existed at the time the hon. Lady's party was last in Government.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the changes in the scheme have been greatly welcomed? However, I know of a considerable number of cases in my own constituency where pensioners have put a sum of money aside for their funeral, and with the rising cost of funerals I must ask my hon. Friend to look very carefully to see whether something can be done to increase the low level of savings involved.

Mr. Major: I understand entirely the points made by the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend. If my hon. Friend looks at the new regime that we propose for assistance with funerals, which takes effect from April this year, he will find that many people will have the full cost of their funeral paid and not just the inadequate flat rate of £30 as at present.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that under the Labour Government there was no clear method of helping those in need with fuel costs and, indeed, that it was this Government who made severe weather payments available on a statutory basis for the first time? Over and above that, is it not the case that there is substantially increased help for those supplementary pensioners and very many more of them are claiming heating additions?

Mr. Major: I can confirm all those points. This is certainly the first statutory entitlement of this sort and, of course, it is built upon the largest amount of special heating additions being paid that we have seen at any stage.—[Interruption.] We are not abolishing them, we are sinking them into the income support scheme, where they should be. So far as the position before 1979 is concerned, there was no statutory entitlement, no real entitlement and no concern shown by the Labour party.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware that his complacency in no way helps those people, including our own constituents, who are just above the level of supplementary benefit, who receive no assistance or any form of heating help, and therefore, even in weather such as today's, suffer great anguish simply because they do not


have enough funds to provide adequate heating in their homes? Is there not a need to look again at the regulations to make them more generous?

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman points to a problem that is always bound to exist when one bases entitlement, as traditionally we have done, on supplementary benefit level. It is precisely for that reason that during the period of this Government we have substantially raised the level of supplementary benefit.

Mr. Dickens: Is the Minister aware that the great success of the severe weather payments scheme is in no small measure due to the support that the Minister has had from Department of Health and Social Security offices throughout the United Kingdom? Furthermore, is the Minister aware that in most cases those payments have been made within one day, and at the very outside within seven days? This is a marvellous effort by Government and civil servants.

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend's point is well made and I am happy to join him in a tribute to the staff who worked so well to ensure that this scheme was successful and that the payments were generally made very promptly.

Mrs. Beckett: Is the Minister aware that almost everything he has said about the record of the last Labour Government in this respect is grossly misleading and that pensioners are much more interested in what is going to happen next winter than in what happened seven winters ago? Since the present scheme, of which he has spoken so highly, will be abolished in April, will he now undertake to do as was suggested last year, look at a sensible winter premium scheme which will run throughout the winter months, and introduce one in time for next winter?

Mr. Major: There is a distinction between a sensible winter premium scheme and the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). As regards what will happen at the end of this winter, we shall consider the position then and determine what might need to be done for the future.

Hospices

Mr. Spencer: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on hospices for the terminally ill.

Mrs. Currie: The Department's policy on terminal care is set out in circular HC874 issued last week. We are asking health authorities to examine their current provision of services for all terminally ill patients and to plan to rectify deficiencies, where possible in collaboration with the voluntary sector. I have arranged for a copy of the circular and the covering letter to be placed in the Library.

Mr. Spencer: Is my hon. Friend aware of the excellent work being done by the Leicester hospice, which has its day centre in my constituency? It has been funded by private donation as to its capital cost and 80 per cent. of its revenue funding comes from the local health authority. Does she not think that that spells out an admirable lesson in public and private co-operation for the Health Service as a whole?

Mrs. Currie: Yes. I am glad to add my words of praise, thanks and encouragement to the people in Leicester, particularly those in my hon. Friend's constituency who

have worked together through LORDS—Leicestershire organisation for the relief of suffering—and the local health authority to ensure that the services can be developed and maintained.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware how attractive she looks today? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the rest of the question.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister also aware that I would like to praise those people back in the community, particularly in the constituency of Ashfield, who raise money for hospices? However, when are the Government going to stop street-corner begging to provide that sort of facility?

Mrs. Currie: In response to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the circular I have just mentioned asks health authorities to describe in their programmes for 1988–89, as a start, what arrangements they have for financial support of hospices and voluntary bodies providing terminal care. They have been told that where a hospice plays an essential part in a health authority's overall plans, we expect them to make an appropriate financial contribution. In response to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I thank him and I must say that he looks pretty cute today, too.

Abortion Act 1967

Mrs. Roe: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received seeking a review of the working of the Abortion Act 1967; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amess: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received seeking a review of the workings of the Abortion Act 1967; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Newton: We have received no recent representations seeking a review of the working of the Abortion Act 1967. We have however, received about 15 items of correspondence seeking a review of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 in the light of its effects on abortion practice.

Mrs. Roe: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern about recent allegations in the press relating to certain tour operators who are arranging package deal trips at an all-in price of about £360 for pregnant Spanish women to come to Britain for a sightseeing tour of London, a shopping expedition and an abortion? Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to investigate these claims of abuses of the present Abortion Act 1967, and if so is he able to inform the House of his conclusions?

Mr. Newton: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having taken the matter up with us. I hope to be writing to her with the outcome of our investigations shortly. I can tell her that officials, including both a medical and a nursing officer, have now visited both homes and made a thorough examination of numerous records. Those inquiries have produced no evidence that any abortion has been performed for the reasons that were alleged, nor that payment in advance had been made by Spanish patients. I understand that two of the doctors named have put the matter in the hands of the Medical Defence Union. In


addition, solicitors acting on behalf of one of the clinics have written to the editor of the paper concerned denying the allegations and requesting a printed retraction and apology, failing which, I understand, they state that proceedings will be instituted.

Mr. Amess: Will the Minister recognise that, with the advances in medical science, the 1967 Act is no longer acceptable? Many people in this country view with increasing alarm the number of abortions that have been carried out, particularly those which are late. When will the Government introduce further legislation to protect the unborn child in this country?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has issued advice on this matter and we would expect NHS consultants to conform to it. It is a condition of registration that private nursing homes should not perform abortions after 24 weeks. Of course, we have made clear our support of the Bill introduced by the Bishop of Birmingham in another place.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will resist any attempt to interfere with the basic provisions of the 1967 Act? Will he ensure that, at the end of the day, it still remains the woman's right to make a choice?

Mr. Newton: I can confirm that the Government would expect to maintain the general position that these are matters to be decided by the whole House on free votes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Dame Jill Knight: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Dame Jill Knight: As my right hon. Friend prepares for her forthcoming visit to Moscow, will she reflect on the fact that, if it had not been for the strength and purpose of the Western Alliance in deploying cruise missiles and other INF weapons, there is no reason to suppose that Mr. Gorbachev would have come forward with his present proposals on balanced reductions of such weapons? Has my right hon. Friend noted the speech made in the House yesterday by the former Labour Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), which showed much greater purpose and grasp of reality than the Leader of the Opposition shows?

The Prime Minister: I totally agree with my hon. Friend, who makes her point very effectively. Unless this country had been firm in deploying cruise missiles, there would now be no proposals to take out SS20s. I agree with her that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) has shown an admirable consistency in these matters, which is more than can be said for the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).

Mr. McNamara: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr McNamara: Is the Prime Minister aware that at a press conference this morning the Secretary of State for the Environment, referring to his hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning, said, "Although he is the pilot of the Bill, he has not got his bow doors open"? My constituents crew these ferries. There are 81 people still on board and many are still unidentified. Was not that joke even sicker and even more insensitive than the one that appeared in Conservative Newsline this week insulting the blind? Now that the Secretary of State for the Environment, himself a former Minister of Transport, has apologised, saying that those remarks were inappropriate, inopportune—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair to go on for as long as that.

Mr. McNamara: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has said that those remarks were inappropriate, inopportune and insensitive, would it not be appropriate and sensitive for the Prime Minister to call for his resignation?

The Prime Minister: No. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend issued a statement, saying:
I deeply regret this inadvertent error and apologise unreservedly. I am only too well aware of the personal grief involved in such a tragedy as the recent ferry disaster.
I believe it has been the habit and custom of this House, when an unreserved apology is made, to accept it.

Mr. Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to commend the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), in his regretted absence, not merely for exposing the nonsense of the defence policy of the Labour Front Bench but for showing up the fundamental contradictions within the so-called alliance, of which the Liberal unilateralists form so significant a part?

The Prime Minister: I gladly support what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said and his firmness in defending this country, its defence and security. I join my hon. Friend in pointing out that, when it came to deploying cruise missiles, the Liberal and SDP Members voted against that deployment.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that the revised balance of payments figures—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinnock: Oh yes—the real world. Is the Prime Minister aware that the revised balance of payments figures published last week show an overall deficit of £1·1 billion, a trade deficit of £8 billion and a manufactured trade deficit of £6 billion? Is the Prime Minister going to sit back and allow that to grow to an overall deficit of £3 billion this year, or is she going to change policies?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has taken the revised figures. He is correct about them. But since 1979 there has been a surplus on current account of nearly £20 billion. Between 1974 and 1979 there was a cumulative deficit of over £5 billion.

Mr. Kinnock: When the right hon. Lady has been able to depend in each of the years in which she has been Prime Minister on a minimum oil revenue of £8 billion a year, can


she explain why, despite that great cushion for her policies, Britain has still lost 20 per cent. of its share in world markets, a 20 per cent. share of domestic manufacturing markets and 2 million manufacturing jobs and is now less competitive than it was in 1979? Can she explain all that and come clean about the fact that any success that she has achieved in international payments is directly and solely attributable to the oil revenues?

The Prime Minister: Last year, exports were at a record level in volume terms despite the reduction in oil exports. There was an improvement of more than £2 billion in invisible surplus between 1985 and 1986. The right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that that minus £1·1 billion—[Interruption.]—has to be set against a surplus on current account since 1979 of nearly £20 billion. The right hon. Gentleman refers to the oil factor. May I point out to him that the United Kingdom had net overseas assets of £80 billion at the end of 1985, giving an annual income of more than £4 billion a year. That is achieved by investing some of the income from North sea oil.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister talks about export figures. Is she aware that, since she has been Prime Minister, exports have gone up by 10 per cent. in volume and value and manufactured imports have gone up by 40 per cent. in volume and value? If the right hon. Lady wants to take so much credit for overseas holdings, can she explain why, with holdings of £150 billion, we were still getting only £4 billion in return last year? Will she now answer the first question: what will she do to stop the constant deterioration in our trade position?

The Prime Minister: Bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman speaks for a party which, when in Government had an overall deficit of £5 billion—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman speaks for a party which, when in Government had an overall deficit of £5 billion and complains about this Government who have an overall surplus of £20 billion. We are not going to take lectures from the likes of him.

Mr. Dorrell: Returning to the subject that the Leader of the Opposition understandably prefers to avoid, does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that Mr. Gorbachev has taken up President Reagan's offer of the zero option is welcome? However, is it not important that NATO is not baffled by false promises or by weasel words about short-range intermediate nuclear forces and conventional weapons? Is it not essential that a clear link is established in the negotiations between the implementation of a long-range INF agreement with progress on reducing the conventional disparity, as well as short-range INF?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It does not help to make all this noise.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Soviet Union is now taking up the intermediate-range forces point because we deployed cruise and Pershing. I also agree with him that one can never take a single point out of the whole disarmament and defence picture and treat it in isolation from others. Therefore, one must also

consider the shorter-range nuclear weapons and the conventional imbalance. Otherwise our defences would be insecure. We believe in keeping them secure.

Mr. Beith: Does that answer mean that the Prime Minister is going back on her previous support for the zero-zero option at a time when the United States is clearly prepared to back it? Is the Prime Minister to make progress on the other important areas a condition of achieving agreement on intermediate nuclear forces?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the draft treaties that have been tabled he will find that shorter-range nuclear weapons are considered. He will also find from the NATO communiqu?é that it is important to consider those: if not in fact to sign an agreement on them at precisely the same time, to have a follow-on agreement on shorter-range as part of the consideration of the intermediate range. It would be a very foolish person who also ignored the conventional imbalance. Those who wish to select one thing without thought for the others are not interested in our defence. They are interested only in making short-term political points.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of people in this country and in western Europe believe that our security is safe in her hands? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making very slow progress today.

Mr. Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the vast majority of British people believe that freedom and democracy are worth defending whatever the cost?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a fact of modern defence life that the time needed to design and manufacture the weapons is so long that one can never afford to make a mistake in arms control negotiations, because there will be no time whatsoever to correct it. That is why we have to look at the print so carefully.

Mr. Loyden: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Loyden: Has the Prime Minister had a chance today to read the comments in the press about the sharp drop in Townsend Thoresen's shares, which, it is said, is due to the safety modifications that will be required to meet the new standards? Will the Prime Minister now accept that her theory about popular capitalism has created a climate in which profit and commercial interests take precedence over life, the wellbeing of people, and the safety of crew and passengers? Let that be condemned as the ugly and utterly unacceptable face of her popular capitalism.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is talking total nonsense and he knows it. The point was raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport yesterday and he dealt with it. The hon. Gentleman knows that no company has a future unless it puts safety above all else, and that is the key to its future.

Mr. Yeo: In the course of her busy day will my right hon. Friend reflect on the contrast between next week's Budget—when we are all looking forward to tax cuts that will follow on from the increases in spending that were


announced last autumn—and the Budgets of nine or 10 years ago during the hung Parliament, when the choice was between which taxes would be increased and where spending cuts would be made? Does my right hon. Friend recall that the then Labour Government were able to introduce those Budgets only because they were sustained in office by the Liberal party?

The Prime Minister: I think that we had better wait for next Tuesday's Budget and not anticipate its contents. I would point out that those below the Opposition Gangway belonging to the alliance party voted against last year's income tax cuts. The Conservative party is the party of lower income tax while all other parties are in favour of higher income tax.

Dr. McDonald: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Dr. McDonald: Does the Prime Minister expect to see full employment in this country before she retires to Dulwich?

The Prime Minister: I believe that this country is tackling both its manufacturing and its unemployment problems better than any other country in Europe, and that, had it not been for the policies that we have pursued, the unemployment figures would have been far higher than they are now.

Artificial Limb and Appliance Services

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government's response to the McColl report on the artificial limb and appliance services. As the House will know, these important services are administered directly by my Department and the working party was invited to consider them and to make recommendations for the improvement of efficiency and patient care. I am most grateful to the members of the working party for the comprehensive and dedicated manner in which they tackled this task.
The report made wide-ranging and detailed recommendations concerning the organisation and management of the services; the nature of the contracts for the supply of limbs; the quality of the limb-fitting services; and the desirability of closer links between the full range of hospital, community care and local authority services. Action has been taken already to implement many of the recommendations.
We have strengthened substantially the top management of the limb and appliance services by appointing a general manager to head a specialist disablement services division; supported by a new director of operations, and a new director of procurement from the National Health Service.
We now propose to extend the principle of general management throughout the limb and appliance service in order to implement the far-reaching changes we envisage. We intend to reorganise the service into regions with boundaries that are conterminous with those of the National Health Service. Each region will be headed by a senior manager responsible for the entire limb and appliance service in that area. We are also, as I told the House on 17 February, improving the range of wheelchairs that are provided. Pilot projects to improve transport arrangements for patients are under way and improved management systems are alrady in place.
We believe the quality of limb fitting by prosthetists is vital to patient welfare. The McColl report was critical of the level and quality of prosthetic training. We agree that it should be improved. We wish to see professional training and the status of prosthetics upgraded. We have therefore established a joint working party with the limb industry and the Orthotic and Prosthetic Training and Education Council to review speedily the present arrangements for prosthetic training and to make recommendations for improvement. We have already received an interim report from the working party and expect a final report within three months; I shall report further to the House when this is received. I anticipate that implementation of any recommendations will make provision both for initial training leading to a qualification and subsequent in-service training.
We also agree with the McColl report that we should seek improved contracts for the supply of artificial limbs. We are therefore pressing the limb industry to agree to new contractual arrangements that will increase competition and encourage a quicker and more flexible service. Discussions with this aim in mind are continuing and we attach great importance to this principle.
One of the most important conclusions of the McColl working party was that it would be inappropriate for the

limb and appliance services to remain under the direct control of the Department of Health and Social Security. I wish to make clear that we accept that recommendation and propose to act on it.
We have therefore decided to establish an interim management board, in the form of a special health authority, with effect from 1 July this year. The authority will be accountable directly to me. I am delighted to announce that my noble Friend Lord Holderness has agreed to be chairman of the new authority. My noble Friend is a distinguished former Member of this House and has a long and proven record of commitment to disabled people. I have no doubt that he will be an excellent chairman.
We envisage the board will have about eight members and their names will be announced shortly following further consultation with the chairman. We shall of course also have regard to the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 in appointing board members. However, the House may care to know that I have already invited Professor Ian McColl, chairman of the McColl working party, to join the board as vice-chairman so that the views and knowledge of the working party will be readily available. I am delighted to report that Professor McColl has accepted, and I know that this delight is shared by my noble Friend.
The McColl report identified an imperative need for stronger links with the occupational therapy, physiotherapy and rehabilitation services offered by the National Health Service. We agree with this recommendation. To achieve this aim in the interests of patient care we have concluded that, in the longer term, the right organisational framework for the limb and appliance service would be alongside these services within the regional and district health authorities. This is also the view of the recent report on disability published by the Royal College of Physicians.
Clearly, however, this is a far-reaching change which cannot, in our view, be carried into effect immediately. The process of transition will need very careful management to safeguard the interests of all involved, whether patients or staff. We shall expect the new authority to complete this task in time for integration to take place on 1 April 1991. The instrument establishing the authority will set this as the end date.
The new authority will have a threefold responsibility: to oversee the planning for the eventual transfer of the services; to build upon the improvements already under way; and to run the service for this transitional period. It will have power to appoint its own senior staff. The special health authority will be given its own budget for 1987–88 and planning figures for the two following years. Special arrangements will be made to safeguard the level of funding available throughout the period of the special health authority's life and for a period after integration with health authorities. The authority will also be charged with devising safeguards to ensure that continuity of the services is maintained following integration.
Staff who are currently employed in the service will be invited to work for the new authority. Their existing terms and conditions will apply and the authority will be required to ensure that their interests are protected. Discussions with trade unions and staff will begin today.
The authority will be responsible for the whole of the artificial limb service, for the wheelchair service, and for the provision of appliances to war pensioners. The


Government remain committed to ensuring that the status of war pensioners continues to be recognised. We will ensure that the new authority reflects that commitment. Decisions on the future of the artificial eye service will be taken when the current review of the service is complete, but this may also be added to the special health authority's responsibilities. The departmental vehicle schemes will remain directly administered by the DHSS.
The decisions I have announced today represent the most far-reaching changes in the artificial limb and appliances service since its inception. They follow the recommendations of the working party. They meet the aspirations of disabled people, and I am confident they will improve the services available to them. I believe it is right to end the uncertainty of recent years.
The Government look forward to working with the new authority to build a better future for the patients they will serve.

Mr. Alfred Morris: In thanking the Minister for his statement, I am sure the whole House will acknowledge the importance in human terms of the study undertaken by Professor McColl and his colleagues. May I remind the House of the words of the then Minister for Health when he published the report on 27 January 1986, over 13 months ago? He said that the report had
confirmed that the services are falling below standard in several respects".
and that it had
identified a number of matters which must be tackled vigorously if the quality of care we want for patients is to be secured and delivered efficiently and economically." — [Official Report. 27 January 1986; Vol.90, c.391.]
I must, therefore, ask the Minister why it has taken over 13 months for us to receive today's statement. This surely does not suggest that the Government have been tackling the issues with any urgency or vigour.
The most fundamental question now is whether the Minister agrees that people with disabilities in the United Kingdom deserve a wheelchair and artificial limb service which is equal to the best in the world? Is he satisfied that his statement today will achieve that result? Will the new authority be totally independent so that it can act solely in the interests of disabled people? The chairman is himself a disabled person, but how many users of the artificial limb and appliance service will be members of the authority? Will the Minister also establish an advisory committee of ALAC users so that he will have direct feedback from disabled people themselves?
Can the Minister say any more about the training and upgrading of prosthetists and about giving them responsibility which starts, if possible, before the amputation and lasts until the patient is totally satisfied with the artificial limb? How will employment opportunitis be affected, and can the Minister say anything further today about the Hanger dispute, which he himself has described as "causing distress, worry and inconvenience," not to mention the deep sense of injustice felt by a dedicated work force?
What improvements to transport arrangements for patients does the hon. Gentleman envisage? In relation to artificial arms, will he accept that current hand covers are abysmal and cause considerable distress, especially to young people? On wheelchairs, is he satisfied that his statement will lead to the provision of a safe and comfortable wheelchair which is suitable for each

individual who needs one, especially for growing children whose needs can change very quickly? Many of them, sadly, are terminally ill and since we cannot add years to their lives, ought we not at least to add life to their years by making the best possible provision?
How will what has been decided affect physiotherapists and others in the overworked and underpaid professions supplementary to medicine? How will approved repairers be affected, and will they be enabled to stock enough spares to reduce delays in repair and maintenance? Is the Minister aware that one wheelchair user who is well known to many of us, on both sides of the House, has been waiting over nine months for a simple repair? As he is Bert Massie, assistant director of RADAR, who knows the ropes as well as any disabled person in the country, what must the position be for people without his knowledge arid contacts? Will the Minister respond to the desire for occupant-controlled powered outdoor wheelchairs, especially among people over pension age who do not qualify for mobility allowance?
The Minister's statement dealt with many complex issues. Does he agree that they deserve to be debated as soon as possible?
Finally, will the Minister agree that to finance any improvements for some disabled people by reducing benefits or services for other disabled people is not on, and that the recommendation to fund outdoor wheelchairs by abating mobility allowance must be rejected? Does he recognise that, in the week before the Chancellor intends to give away several billion pounds to people whose resources already far outstrip their needs, to cut a benefit paid to people with the least resources and the greatest needs would be wholly unacceptable to this House?

Mr. Major: The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of detailed points to which I shall endeavour to respond. I am grateful to him for his kind words, with which I agree, about Professor McColl and the McColl report.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the time taken to produce our response. It has certainly taken a year to produce it, but it is better to take a sufficiency of time to produce the right response than to make an early response which perhaps does not meet what is required. I think that the right hon. Gentleman's words confirm that the statement meets the aspirations of disabled people, and that was the prime concern that we had in mind.
In so far as providing the best service in the world is concerned, it is certainly my clear ambition to ensure that the service is substantially better than it has been hitherto. That was the message of the McColl report. That is what the changes are intended to achieve, and I believe that they will do so. The special health authority will have the same degree of independence as any other special health authority and will, as I mentioned in my statement, report directly to me and, through me, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I shall refer the matter of an advisory committee on artificial limb and appliance centre users to my noble Friend to consider.
As I mentioned in my statement, we wish to see improved training of prosthetists, both before taking their qualification and subsequently in in-service training. We wish also to upgrade their status. Discussions upon that matter will continue. We shall provide full details of employment opportunities to trade unions and staff at our


first meeting, which is to commence this afternoon. I believe that they will be found to be satisfactory by the staff concerned.
I am bound to say that Hangers has maintained a high degree of service over recent months. As I have stated on previous occasions when reporting on the unfortunate dispute, we remain in daily contact with the company. I am pleased to tell the House that the backlog is diminishing steadily and the service is substantially improving. I hope that the backlog will be wholly cleared before too long.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to powered wheelchairs and the abatement of mobility allowance. I am not attracted to the principle of an abatement of mobility allowance to provide an alternative improvement elsewhere in the service. The special health authority will be aware of my views upon that point.
In concert with the chairman and vice-chairman, I shall consider future disabled board members at an early date. It is highly likely that other disabled people will be appointed. I must emphasise that they will be appointed not because they are disabled but because they are able, whether or not they are disabled, for they have a big job to do.
The McColl report was primarily concerned with efficiency and stated that substantial savings could be made by a more efficient service. If that proves to be the case, such savings will be available for the special health authority to use as it thinks fit on services for disabled people.

Mr. Roger Sims: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his positive and far-reaching proposals. They will be widely welcomed, not least by our constituents who have to take advantage of such services. I was glad to hear that he intends to introduce an element of competition into the supply of limbs. Will that competition extend to other forms of equipment? Can the Minister give us some idea of how wide a range of contractors will be given the opportunity of supplying equipment to the service?

Mr. Major: I should be unwise to go too far down that line except to state that, as a matter or principle, for the reasons set out in the McColl report and others, we are committed to wide competition. At present, we are discussing contracts with the present suppliers. My hon. Friend is entirely right to point to the benefits of competition among existing suppliers and, no doubt in the future, among other suppliers as well.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I warmly welcome the ending of the old system of inefficient management control and excessive profits. Will the Minister assure the House that the service will always be geared to providing limbs for the individual, that limbs will not be mass produced and that they will always be free of charge? Does he recognise that a glaring omission from his statement was the need for specialised amputations? That matter was mentioned by McColl, who said that a quarter of amputations are unsatisfactory. One can replace inadequate artificial limbs, but one cannot re-do inadequate amputations. Will the Minister consider the creation of a specialised amputation service?

Mr. Major: I shall certainly discuss the right hon. Gentleman's last point with the special health authority.

As the right hon. Gentleman will understand, I am bound to say that it raises far wider matters than those that fall naturally within my remit. Let me make it perfectly clear to the right hon. Gentleman that our policy is that every type of limb should be available to every patient at every centre. We want them to have the best possible limbs that we can provide, for it is critical to their standard and future style of life. That is our clear intention.

Dame Jill Knight: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there will be great pleasure at the Government's swift response, once again, to an expert report? However, may I ask him whether the term "appliance services" includes ileostomy and colostomy appliances? Will there be machinery within the new set-up for research into complaints that appliances, such as artificial hands, are unsatisfactory and could be better?

Mr. Major: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. The service is principally related to artificial limbs, whether upper or lower limbs, and to the wheelchair service. It may also include the artificial eye service, though that has yet to be determined, and the various services for war pensioners, wigs and orthopaedic equipment. It does not include the other specific matters that were mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister will be aware that we welcome thoroughly the report, as we welcome also the work done by Professor McColl and his working party. One of the conclusions to which the working party was forced to come was that the disabled have been very badly served.
It would be appreciated if the Minister could say this afternoon that the new special health authority will have true independence to say exactly what is needed by the disabled, that it will also have the budgetary capability to deal with what is required and that, tied in with the annual presentation of the special health authority's report to the Minister over the four-year transitional period, it will be possible to have a debate in the House about how the proposals are being implemented. Major criticisms have been made. However, the proof of the pudding will lie in how well the special health authority is allowed to get on with its important job.

Mr. Major: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I am grateful to him for saying it.
As for a debate on this subject, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. No doubt he will contemplate holding a debate both this year and in future years.
As for independence, I touched on that point in my answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). The concern and importance that we attach to independence could not be more clearly illustrated than by the appointment of my noble Friend Lord Holderness as chairman. The extent to which we are committed to the principles of the McColl report could not be more clearly illustrated than by the fact that we have invited Professor McColl to serve as vice-chairman of the management board and by the fact that he has accepted.
As for funding, I mentioned in my statement that we shall be protecting the funding during the life of the special


health authority and for a short period after it is subsumed within the National Health Service. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's points, well made, have been well met.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I add my congratulations and thanks to my hon. Friend for his far-reaching statement. The McColl committee was set up originally to look at inherent weaknesses in the artificial limb system that has existed not only for the last 13 months but for many decades, including the period when the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who was so churlish in his acceptance of this statement, was Minister.
I am somewhat disappointed by my hon. Friend's cautious approach to the monopoly that is enjoyed by a handful of firms whose attitude has been less inclined towards giving a service to clients and patients than towards satisfying DHSS officials who are their ultimate paymasters. It is that more than anything else that led to the setting up of the McColl committee, as I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise.

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend makes some powerful points, though with typical modesty he does not mention that in fact it was he who established the McColl committee some years ago. I believe that many disabled people, both now and in the future, will thank him for having done so.
I take entirely to heart my hon. Friend's remarks about the apparently cautious approach to monopoly. We are in the midst of discussions, and at this moment anything other than a cautious approach would not be well made. However, I emphasise to my hon. Friend and to others that our objective is competition and efficiency in the interests of both the National Health Service and the patients.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Minister say whether the statement made last week for Scotland by his noble Friend Lord Glenarthur reflects the way in which he would have responded had he had the responsibility for the supply of artificial limbs in Scotland and whether the body that he is discussing will have responsibility in Scotland? The Minister will know that the McColl report differentiates clearly between the practices in Scotland, which are to be preferred, and those in England and Wales. Does he agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) that there should be an early debate so that those different practices can be discussed?
As an hon. Member sponsored by the unions with which the Minister's associates will be discussing the proposals, I should like to ask him whether he could arrange a debate, once we know the outcome of those discussions, so that the House can be informed whether those who have been concerned with the supply of limbs are happy with the Minister's statement.

Mr. Major: On the question of a debate, I can only reiterate the remarks that I made a moment ago.
I do not have responsibility for the artificial limb service in Scotland, but I am aware of the provisions in the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health a few days ago. The special health authority applies to England. For a long time there have been separate systems to deal with the artificial limb and appliance service in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Sir John Page: Is my hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be delighted to learn that Lord Holderness has accepted the position of chairman of the new board. As an amputee, he has special insights, and as a former Minister responsible for pensions and national insurance, he will be able to work his way through the bureaucratic jungle. He and Professor McColl will make an extremely strong team.

Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that my noble Friend will not only work his way through what my hon. Friend has described as the bureacratic jungle, but where such a jungle is shown to exist, I am sure that my noble Friend will trample all over it. I share my hon. Friend's view and cannot conceive of a better chairman for the authority than my noble Friend.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Does the Minister agree that one of the valuable by-products of the work of Professor McColl and his colleagues has been the democratic pressures that have been exerted on many of us by people who are chronically disabled and who are waiting for the report to come out and to see what the Government will do? Will he accept that this has brought into action many Members of Parliament who hitherto did not know a great deal about this matter but who have now visited the prosthetists in their workshops, and looked at the chairs.
Have we made a real advance in giving more of the chronically disabled access to the dual-purpose, battery-powered wheelchairs because, when we table questions on it in the House, letter after letter comes to us from a wider grouping of people than we ever thought needed such chairs?

Mr. Major: The early part of the hon. Gentleman's observations are entirely accurate. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern and interest in this important report.
As for battery-powered wheelchairs, and indeed wheelchairs generally, one of the principal responses of the McColl report was to suggest that there may be substantial room for improvement in the wheelchair service and possible savings to be made in its organisation and administration. I reiterate the point that I made a moment ago. If those savings are made under the management of the special health authority, they will be available to that authority to use in the wheelchair service or elsewhere in the service of disabled people as it thinks fit.

Mr. John Hannam: In welcoming my hon. Friend's announcement, I should like to thank him especially for the extensive consultation that he has had with all the disabled persons' organisations, outside as well as within the House. I congratulate him on his decision to establish a management structure outside the DHSS, and also on the appointment of Professor McColl as vice-chairman of that structure. Will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to the use of modern technology in the design and fitting of wheelchairs and artificial limbs?

Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his earlier remarks. I can confirm that we shall take his latter remarks to heart.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the fact that one of my constituents, a heavily built middle-aged lady, had to wait the best part of a year for her right leg, and in the light of the statement this afternoon, which we


welcome, when can she and others expect a real improvement in fitting, provision and servicing — immediately, in a few months, or after a couple of years?

Mr. Major: The changes that have been made in recent months are already showing a substantial improvement. If the hon. Gentleman's constituent, or, indeed, a constituent of any hon. Member, finds herself in that sort of circumstance, I hope that hon. Members will draw it speedily to my attention. We now have a management structure which should ensure speedy treatment for those who fall into the circumstances set out by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellence of the Government's positive response which will give great encouragement to the disabled and those who work with the disabled. I know that he is aware that one of the problems facing disabled people is the difficulty of obtaining appointments at limb centres and then of obtaining transport to and from them. Has he any initiatives in mind to ease that problem?

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is entirely right. One of the principal operational problems for disabled people has been, first, obtaining an appointment and then finding the transport to take them to the appointment and home again. In both instances we have management initiatives in mind which we think will substantially ease and solve those problems. That will be welcome. I am also considering a specific budget to be administered locally by the artificial limb and appliance centres to deal specifically with transport problems.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the reasoning behind the Minister's statement today about implementing the recommendations in the McColl report to try to provide a better, quicker and more effective service at the point of delivery for people who lose limbs in the mining industry and industry generally, as many of my constituents have done? The Minister is prepared to set up a new authority which obviously has quango implications.
Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that scores of workers at Hanger want to return to work to provide limbs quickly and efficiently? Indeed, they could do so if only the Minister or one of his colleagues visited the management there and intervened, as the Government have done in some issues recently. The Government are well known for getting involved in all sorts of dramas and crises. Why do not the Government tell the management that they want the limbs produced more quickly and that the way to do it is to get those men and women back to work?

Mr. Major: We certainly require the limbs more speedily, which is why we have set up arrangements for there to be daily contact with the company. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that that objective is being met increasingly. However, it would be neither productive nor proper for me to intervene directly in the dispute. Our objective is the one that the hon. Gentleman accurately set out: we need a better service for the disabled.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I welcome my hon. Friend's responsive and caring statement. Any improvements in limb fitting are to be particularly welcomed. One of my constituents had three replacement limbs, none of which fitted properly and she had to go to

Scotland to get them done properly. I congratulate my hon. Friend and thank him on behalf of all disabled people.

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the fitting of a limb is absolutely critical to the well-being of the patient. That is why we seek to improve the prosthetic training and to provide in-service prosthetic training for prosthetists already in service.

Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the Minister's welcome references to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, does he accept that the sections which deal with assessments will be particularly helpful to the various committees that he mentioned and to Professor McColl in identifying individual needs at a given stage in the life of disabled people? Can he tell the House when the orders will be introduced?

Mr. Major: I am not sure that that follows either from what I said or from my statement. Suffice it to say that I hope to be able to announce shortly that some of the provisions will be operative. I cannot elaborate on that at present. I think that the hon. Gentleman's intervention was ingenious.

Mr. Fred Silvester: May I press my hon. Friend on the dual-purpose, indoor-outdoor wheelchair? One of the discussions around the report was about young people who suffer from diseases which will shorten their life expectancy. What is the position of the fairly rapid provision of suitable wheelchairs for those people?

Mr. Major: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind patients suffering from muscular dystrophy and similar afflictions. Today I cannot say precisely what the position will be on that. It is a matter which we shall wish to discuss with the chairman and other members of the special health authority. Clearly, there are particular technical and design difficulties with such a wheelchair, apart from the other problems, of which my hon. Friend will be aware.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the artificial limb and appliance centres now serve a different and aging population compared with that which the centres were introduced to serve in 1915? While one welcomes the recognition in his statement of the needs of war pensioners, they are now only a minority of the users of the service. Is he aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed by those who want to see an effective and up-to-date service for the disabled?

Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. She is right; the artificial limb and appliance centres now treat a different clientele from what would have been their typical clientele a few years ago. In recent years the improvement in the service has been substantial, and I am grateful to the many staff who work in the service who have helped to bring it about.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I welcome my hon. Friend's response to the McColl report. Does he agree, particularly in view of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), that the time now appears to have come when contracts for the supply of artificial limbs should be put out to competitive tender?

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is glancing a little into the future, but the underlying principle of his remarks is one that I cannot but acknowledge.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As a member of the Social Services Select Committee with a particular interest in this area, and having recently met Professor Kennaway of Imperial college and Dr. Montgomery of the University of London, may I tell my hon. Friend that his statement will be warmly welcomed by all those with any knowledge of the disabled and of those who need artificial limbs and appliances?
Will my hon. Friend take on board two points which need immediate priority attention? The first concerns the training of prosthetists, which is of the utmost importance. Will he give further consideration to that? The second is that it is now time that the facilities of the companies that supply the DHSS are increased so that limbs are not just available for those who need them, but are made to suit the patients. That is long overdue.

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in this matter, so I am especially grateful for his support. We are seeking to conclude the work of the working party studying the training of prosthetists as speedily as possible and I hope that we can carry its recommendations into effect with the objectives that my hon. Friend set out. I entirely take my hon. Friend's point about competition, which is an important one.

Mr. Alfred Morris: As the Minister knows, my principal concern today, indeed my duty, was to reflect the many worries expressed to me by disabled people and their organisations. I fully accept, and I hope the whole House will appreciate, the importance of the role of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) in this matter.
With regard to a debate, will the Minister join me in an appeal to the Leader of the House, who has been an interested observer today—he is in reflective mood—for parliamentary time to look in more detail at decisions which are so deeply important to severely disabled people?

Mr. Major: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As to joining the right hon. Gentleman in an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I am sure that his appeal is sufficiently powerful and that it will have been noted.

Prime Minister's Question Time

Sir Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Prime Minister's Questions it has always been the norm that the Leader of the Opposition puts two questions to the Prime Minister. That is generally accepted by the House. In recent weeks it has become obvious that that norm has become three questions; the right hon. Gentleman is putting three questions to the Prime Minister. Can you persuade the Leader of the Opposition to revert to the previous practice when two questions were the norm and that three questions were the exception? Prime Minister's Question Time is short enough for Back-Bench Members without having three or four interventions from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you give your response to the hon. Gentleman, I ask you to bear in mind that, even if it were the norm in the past—which I do not accept—for there to be only two questions, that was probably when Prime Ministers answered the first question. We now have a Prime Minister who refuses to answer any questions put to her, so it is understandable that my right hon. Friend has to ask several questions.

Mr. Speaker: There has always been a dispensation for the Leader of the Opposition, and three questions have been the norm in this Parliament rather than two, but nevertheless it is true—[Interruption.]

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Four.

Mr. Speaker: Not four. It is perfectly true that I am anxious to call as many Back-Bench Members as possible. The problem today was that there were very long supplementary questions.

Non-Public Limited Companies (Appointment of Directors)

Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give shareholders who hold in their own name twenty-five per cent, or more of a non-public limited company's shares the right to be appointed a director of the company.
In order to present to the House clear and logical reasons for my proposed change in company law, I shall describe the experience of shareholders in a non-public limited company in Tayside. This situation has brought me much personal sadness and it highlights clearly the problems that exist.
The individuals involved are all good friends of mine, and one is a close relative. They are all aware that I shall be outlining their experiences and problems, which they and I believe may be repeated many times throughout Tayside, and many hundreds of times throughout the United Kingdom.
In the late 1960s three young men purchased an aircraft. The objective was to obtain inexpensive flying. They formed a company called Aerosport Ltd. Since that time I have been an unpaid adviser to that company. In 1971 more funds were required and two more flying club members were invited to join the company. At that time, my relative, Mr. Walker, joined the company.
In 1978 a new company was formed with six shareholders. At that time, the main shareholders were part-time executive directors; each of the directors, with one exception were in full-time employment outside the company. The one full-time director was an ex-Royal Air Force flying instructor, who was the chief pilot and chief flying instructor. Those posts are essential under aviation law. The other directors built up the business by devoting summer evenings and weekends to the running of the company; they were working at their hobby.
In 1982 one of the part-time directors, Mr. Fraser, who was also a founder member and chairman of the company, lost his full-time job. The garage firm of which he was managing director had severe financial problems and was closed down. He was out of work and desperate for an income. On my advice, a full-time post was created for him within the company.
Shortly after that the ex-RAF instructor left and the company was left with four shareholders, one of whom was Mr. Fraser, for whom a full-time job had been created, he held just over 33½ per cent, of the shares and was a director. Another person who had a full-time job with Air Service Training was the chief pilot. He held just under 33½ per cent, of the shares; he also was a director.
The third major shareholder, Mr. Walker, devoted every summer evening and summer weekend to the company, and he had done that since 1971. He held about 30 per cent, of the equity and was the third director.
The last shareholder held only a few shares and he had not seen or been near the company for many years.
At the 1984 annual general meeting of the company Mr. Walker — who, as I said earlier, had devoted all his spare time to the company — was, without notice or warning, not re-elected to the board.
The company has never paid a dividend. That was done by agreement, and all the profits were invested in new aircraft and property. The part-time directors had paid

themselves only a small director's fee—the perk was cheap flying. The ex-director has now lost his fee and cheap flying.
In the 1984 accounts the three directors' fees, including salary for the full-time director, amounted to £18,400. In the 1985 accounts, the two directors' fees and full-time salary appeared as £22,300. With one director less, that meant a massive increase for the remaining two. In addition, a new item was a £1,100 contribution for a pension for the full-time director.
All of that information is in the public domain. It can be obtained from Company House records. That is why I have no hesitation in disclosing it. What the records cannot show is the way in which the company assets have been built up by voluntary work over many years, while the full-time director has massively increased the expenses of the company, and his wife is also a part-time employee of the company.
The auditor for the company, Mr. J. L. Hope, advises the two remaining directors, acts for them at annual general meetings and prevents the ex-director from obtaining trading accounts and trading information. That can happen to anyone who has massive shares in a private company.
On the advice of the auditor, in 1984 the ex-director was offered the opportunity to sell his shares to the other remaining directors. The offer was made at £3·50 per share. Only a couple of months ago, Mr. Gillespie, the part-time director, who is soon to take up a post with Loganair, offered his shares to the remaining shareholders. The other shareholders—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but this is not an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Walker: I asked permission to introduce this point, Mr. Speaker, and it is an important fundamental matter of law. There must be hard evidence to prove what I am saying—I have discussed this with the Minister—and it is the hard evidence that I am producing.
The part-time director, Mr. Gillespie, offered his shares to the remaining shareholders for £11 per share. He did so via the company auditor. Nothing has happened to improve the value of the shares. In fact, the massive increase in expenses has probably made the company substantially less profitable. The full-time director has said that he will pay £11 per share and retain the former director, Mr. Gillespie, as a part-time director.
The ex-director has the option—this is the important point—of buying half of the shares on offer at £11 per share and still have no seat on the board, no say in the running of the company, no cheap flying and no prospect of ever being paid a dividend, yet he can hold over 45 per cent, of the equity of the company. That is not a realistic situation. His only other recourse under the law is to apply to have the company liquidated, claiming that his minority interests have not been protected. Everyone expects that to happen.
Such an option can be tortuous, expensive and acrimonious. That is why there is a need to provide the opportunity, in situations such as this or in family businesses, for shareholders to find an alternative and viable course of action.
I hope that the House can see the sense in a shareholder who holds over 25 per cent, of the equity of a company, and who holds the shares in his own name, being given the


option, because that is what it will be, to demand as of right a seat on the board. The existence of such an option will bring realism into what at present can be unrealistic and often stupid situations. It could prevent the complete bust of a company. It would provide the opportunity for directors to take more account of minority interests; it would make shareholders and directors more responsive to the needs of the company and more aware of the realities of modern trading conditions. Directors would learn to operate within a boardroom where one of the directors asked penetrating and searching questions about expenses.
Public limited company law has had to be changed—this is the important point, and you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, of my interest in public limited company law—to bring the law up to date with modern conditions that are reflected in the City and the problems of the City.
Now is the time to bring non-public limited company law up to date to reflect more properly the conditions where more and more people are setting up small companies and where the law governing the accountability of directors requires a more professional and businesslike attitude in the boardroom.
That is why I ask the leave of the House to bring in my Bill, which may, even now, be too late for the company whose problems I have outlined. Yet its experience could and should be prevented. That can be done if my Bill is accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Walker, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, Mr. Gordon Wilson, Mr. Jack Aspinwall and Mr. Peter Bruinvels.

NON-PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANIES (APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTORS)

Mr. Bill Walker accordingly presented a Bill to give shareholders who hold in their own name twenty-five per cent, or more of a non-public limited company's shares the right to be appointed a director of the company: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1 May and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

Orders of the Day — Debtors (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill reforms and modernises the law on debt enforcement in Scotland. It is the first comprehensive review and reform of the procedures for recovery of unpaid debts since 1838 when the previous Debtors (Scotland) Act became law. The reforms are designed to protect debtors from undue hardship and distress and to provide effective ways in which creditors can obtain payment of the debts due to them. In particular, the most resented aspects of warrant sales are abolished.
On almost every occasion that I have answered questions in the House once a month the reform of warrant sales has invariably been raised. This Second Reading debate is in no sense party political, but I am bound to say that I am a little disappointed that Members, such as the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who have harangued me month after month about this matter have not thought fit to attend to give even a partial welcome to the changes that are being introduced.
The arrestment of earnings is reformed with the introduction of a new system of arrestment. New court orders are introduced which safeguard debtors by giving them time to pay their debts without the immediate threat of enforcement procedures, and the arrangements for the discipline and control of sheriff officers and messengers-at-arms are improved.
The Bill implements the principal recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission in its report on diligence and debtor protection and I am sure that the House would want us to pay tribute to the detailed consideration given by the commission in producing its most extensive report to date.
Indeed, as I have said over recent years in the House and outside, some criticism has been directed at the commission for the delay in bringing forward the report. However, anyone who has read the two volumes of the report and considered the research and the scholarship required to complete that report will, I am sure, readily appreciate why the work necessarily took so much time.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I have been one of those who from time to time have referred to the extraordinary delay in what is a highly complex area. Because the report has been in existence for some time it may not have taken account of the worrying development that, with the use of plastic credit cards, there is an upsurge of debt throughout Scotland. In my constituency work many more debt cases are coming my way. What do the Government wish to do to try to control such credit being given to people who are not able to cope with it and are then placed in a position of misery before moving on to this Bill, which deals with the enforcement of debtor provision in a much more humane fashion, but dealing with many more people than would have been the case one, two or three years ago?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I readily appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. All hon. Members will be aware that, with the increase in the opportunities for credit, particularly through the use, as the hon. Gentleman describes it, of plastic money, there is the greater prospect of people bringing together debts which they cannot meet. The hon. Gentleman may have in mind a survey in one Scottish Sunday newspaper which demonstrated that an unemployed 18-year-old could, by a judicious movement around Sauchiehall street and elsewhere in Glasgow, by lunchtime put together credit approaching £2,000. It is not difficult to see that at the end of the day such a person would be unlikely to be able to make a regular payment on those debts, and would accordingly run into difficulties.
However, having said that and acknowledging that some people may have such a problem, it may not agree with the hon. Gentleman's political philosophy, but I should have thought that the rest of us would recognise that it is important to consider credit on a United Kingdom basis rather than an exclusively Scottish one. I think that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that for the time being. However, he will understand that the Bill is concerned with dealing with debt in Scotland once it has occurred.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his use of the word "humane". Overall, the arrangements set out are undoubtedly a marked improvement on what at present obtains and they can properly be characterised as humane.
Diligence may be a term unusual or unknown to non-Scots lawyers, and that may include Scottish Members as well as hon. Members from south of the border, but, in essence, it is the definition of the methods of enforcing unpaid debts due usually under decrees of Scottish courts. Once a court has granted a decree for payment of the debt, two commonly used forms of diligence are available to creditors—the diligence of poinding and warrant sale, and the diligence of arrestment, particularly of earnings. It may assist in this complicated matter if I briefly describe each of those diligences.
The first main diligence with which the Bill deals is that of poinding and sale. The word "poinding" means simply the seizing or impounding of the moveable goods of the debtor. The goods are left in the debtor's possession until they are sold but only after the authority of the sheriff has been obtained. The goods are sold by public auction and the proceeds of the sale put forward in satisfaction of the debt. If the goods are not sold because no bids were made above the value set on them at the poinding the goods are handed over to the creditor to the extent necessary to satisfy the debt owed to him. The diligence is carried out by an officer of the court—a messenger-at-arms in the case of a court of session decree or a sheriff officer in the case of a sheriff court decree — and some of the procedures followed are supervised by the sheriff.
The second main diligence with which the Bill is concerned is that of arrestment of earnings. That is the procedure by which a creditor can attach in the hands of the debtor's employer wages due to the debtor on the next pay day. At present, before the money can be released to the creditor, either the debtor must give his consent or the creditor must raise what is described as an action of furthcoming. The problem is that repeated arrestments may be necessary on successive pay days until the creditor has recovered what is due to him since the arrestment will only attach money due to the debtor on the appropriate pay day.
I expect that some hon. Members are familiar with the complaints that are made to me about the existing procedure. The debtor employee is deeply concerned that successive arrestments made on his wages each week are cumulative in their effect and believes that after a short period he will be wholly deprived of any income coming in at the end of the week. On the other hand, the debtor's employer is more than a little irritated by the barrage of weekly arrestments that are placed on him. It is not difficult to see that his bookkeeping department or wages clerk eventually becomes snowed under.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: It is not only that the imposition of the wage arrestment can damage an individual's interests within the work place; such an order may damage the prospects of promotion and advancement in the company. So wage arrestment is a major penalty imposed upon a person.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I elaborated on two complaints of which I am aware about the existing arrangements for arrestment of earnings and later I will come to the changes and reforms that are to be introduced, which are a significant, possibly underplayed improvement in the legislative proposal. That is part and parcel of what I am saying about the irritation of the employer. He cannot understand why, in connection with someone who might otherwise, so far as he is concerned, be a perfectly satisfactory employee, his wages department is constantly under this barrage of arrestments from a solicitor, or whoever it may be, clogging up the machinery. I think that what we shall be introducing will be something that the hon. Gentleman, and indeed hon. Members generally, will welcome.
The Bill deals with the reform of these two diligences in parts II and III. In doing so, however, the Bill takes account of the fact, pointed out by the Scottish Law Commission in its report, that questions of debt raise social problems as much as or more than legal problems. The commission is to be congratulated on the fact that, having recognised the extent of these social problems, it began its study of diligence by commissioning an extensive programme of research on the nature, scale and social aspects of diligence and debt recovery. It also issued five detailed consultative memoranda, which were widely circulated, in order to ensure that the comments of all interested in these important matters were taken account of by the commission in framing its recommendations. These recommendations were the subjct of a yet further consultation undertaken by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. The Bill has, I am sure, greatly benefited from this extensive consultation and from the commission's thorough and helpful analysis of the problems which arise.
The commission pointed out in its report that the recovery of debts, especially those due by individuals, falls naturally into three stages. The first stage is that at which the creditor makes informal attempts to collect the debt, such as—some of us will be familiar with this—the issuing of a series of warning letters seeking repayment. The second stage is that which begins when a court action for payment is raised. The third stage is when the court decree for payment is followed by further informal attempts at collection or ultimately the enforcement of the decree by diligence. The protracted process of debt recovery acts as a kind of filter, so that the vast majority


of debts are settled in the informal stages and only a very small proportion of debts reach the stage of diligence. Indeed, if there is an underlying and unifying theme in these, as I readily recognise, complicated provisions, it is to improve that filter effect from the time when the informal approaches begin through to the ultimate enforcement processes.
In the case of poinding and warrant sales, only a tiny fraction involve a warrant sale. In 1985, for instance, of some 80,000 debt decrees granted by Scottish courts, 16,500 proceeded to a poinding, 6,000 to a warrant of sale and only 700 to the warrant sale itself. It is right to point out that that figure of 700 includes one third which are commercial sales in shops, offices and so on, as well as household sales. It is important to recognise that these stages of debt recovery are not separate but interrelated. The early stages would be ineffective in eliciting payment if the later stages did not exist. If the earlier stages were ineffective, more cases would, as a consequence, proceed to the later stages. As a result, the commission arrived at the conclusion, with which the Government agree, that the enforcement procedure must retain the ultimate possibility of the warrant sale as a necessary spur to payment in the great majority of cases which are settled at an early stage.
Those consulted by the commision generally agreed that the primary aim of reform should be to introduce new safeguards protecting debtors subject to diligence from undue economic hardship and personal distress and from the continuing threat of diligence even where instalment arrangements have been made.
Looking at the whole complicated matter, the commission considered the possible introduction of a number of different procedures which would involve discretionary control of diligence in order to provide safeguards for debtors. Such safeguards included possible discretionary power to a court to control the enforcement of a debt.
Another possibility was safeguards by operation of law, such as exemptions of particular types of property or categories or levels of income from diligence, or immunity from diligence for particular classes of debtor. However, the commission, at the end of its discussion of the merits of such an approach, rejected those various options. It concluded that the preferred reform was to introduce discretionary control of diligence by the ordinary courts on voluntary application by the debtor.
The first of these reforms—time-to-pay arrangements—is contained in part I of the Bill. This provides important safeguards for debtors who are unable to pay their debts outright. As I have indicated, and as hon. Members will see if they care to look at the commission's report, the evidence which the commission gathered suggested that most debtors subject to diligence are unable rather than unwilling to pay the debt outright and can pay only by instalments. So far as the social aspect of debt in Scotland is concerned, those who are interested might care to look at what is set out in the Law Commission's report beginning at paragraph 263, where it analyses in great detail exactly where the problem lies.
At present, the possibility of the later stages of the diligence of poinding and warrant sale, especially the advertisements of sales in debtors' homes, can sometimes induce debtors to agree to arrangements for payment by instalments at a level which they frankly cannot meet. In addition, only restricted use is apparently made of the right to apply for a summary cause instalment degree and

there is at present no means whereby debtors can obtain an extension of time to pay, free from the threat of immediate or further diligence by others.
Part I of the Bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission to enable debtors in most cases to have more time to pay their debts free from the threat of diligence. There will be two types of order, and I appreciate that this may be somewhat confusing. The first is a time-to-pay direction, which will be available in both the Court of Session and the sheriff court when the decree is granted. In essence, these orders will replace the existing instalment decree, which, as I have just shown, is at present available only in sheriff court summary causes where the amount involved is less than £1,000.
The second type of order is the time-to-pay order, which will be granted by the court at a later stage in the debt recovery process and will have the effect of converting an existing open decree into one in which the sum due can be paid by instalments or by way of a deferred lump sum.

Mr. Wilson: In relation to the proposed instalment decree, will any guidance or direction be given to sheriffs or Court of Session judges in relation to the appropriate instalment to be paid, or will it be left for them to decide at their own discretion? It may well be, of course, that it would be very difficult to get any degree of regularity in payments from one court to another. It may depend, likewise, upon the individual views of individual sheriffs, and that might not be helpful.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The short answer must be that the individual circumstances will vary so much that it would be very difficult to set out any schedule, as we do, for example, in relation to earnings arrestments and as are contained in the schedule to this Bill. What is important, and what should be recognised by those who possibly have hitherto been attracted by debt arrangement schemes, is that the opportunity is given at both stages—first at the time of decree and subsequently by the sheriff—to look at the means of the debtor, not only at his income but also at his outgoings, and say that payment can be made by instalments within a stated period or that nothing need be paid for the time being but that the debt must be paid later.
It would seem that the arrangement opens up an attractive opportunity. As the evidence of the Scottish Law Commission demonstrates, it is unusual for people to have two decrees coming together at exactly the same moment; they may be a matter of months apart and at different stages. If, in relation to one, there is an instalment decree being met and the debtor is paying that off, it would be open, sensible and desirable for the sheriff to say, "As you have concluded your payments in four months' time, thereafter you will start paying £x a week on the latest decree against you."

Mr. Wilson: As the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate, under the late and much lamented small debt procedure which had the great advantage of flexibility there was a going rate at which sheriffs would tend to grant an instalment decree and refuse a request for an open decree for those representing the creditors. However, would the hon. and learned Gentleman look further at the proposition of the sheriff being able to take into account the outgoings as well as the income? Where does he think the judicial time for this will be found? Would it be possible for the Scottish Courts Administration to set up


a unit in each sheriff court that might be able to do that work so that the sheriff gets the information put to him, bearing in mind that the debtor will probably not be represented in court, or could such cases be referred to the citizens advice bureaux which already have a substantial role in giving help to debtors when they face an accumulation of bills coming in at the same time?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: One of the matters not included in the Bill but which is probably desirable—it happens in England—is for the citizens advice bureaux and the Scottish Consumer Council to develop, on a voluntary basis, a debt counselling scheme. If such work were to be done by those bodies — it is an interesting idea—there would certainly be an opportunity not simply to look to the debtor's income, which would be remarkably crude in approach, but to look to the balance of his income and the necessary outgoings.
One thing surprised me about the approach of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). My practice at the Bar did not include debt matters, but it did include consistorial matters. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that when one was arguing before the court trying to arrive at what was an appropriate level of interim aliment to be paid, one looked not simply at the husband's income but at his necessary outgoings. On that basis, it is virtually impossible to arrive at any precise calculation of what should be done.

Mr. Wilson: I had some experience of the small debt court. The Solicitor-General has obviously been deprived of such experience. However, does he realise that a big court could take 150 cases in a morning, mostly heard in the absence of the parties? The time available to the sheriffs for that purpose is limited and I cannot imagine them welcoming means tests. It is entirely different from consistorial cases where one will be given an allocation of time before the court. In small debt work, as now under the summary decrees, and so on, many cases go through and, even allowing for the changes in procedures whereby people do not have to be present, judicial time is not available.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I do not want to protract this matter unduly, but I do not see why within our court system, in the sheriff court, there is not the opportunity to look sensibly at instalments so that those who can pay can come forward and say, "I can afford £5 or £10 a week, broadly speaking, and this is how I get to that figure." That would allow the court to come quickly to a conclusion as to whether that was right. It is important, as I said earlier, that they should not be under any undue pressure to offer too large an instalment fee. However, it would be open to the sheriffs clerk to give some assistance with the application.
While the provision of the time-to-pay arrangements is an important new safeguard, it is of course necessary to consider whether improvements are needed in the diligence procedures themselves to deal with those cases where the debt has to be enforced.
On the matter of diligence of poinding and warrant sale, the commission was strongly urged by some consultees that on social grounds abolition was required rather than reform. The commission rejected the proposal of abolition. It pointed out that some of the demands for

abolition were based on misunderstandings. The diligence is not an anachronistic hangover from a harsher, earlier era. It is not peculiar to Scotland, since enforcement against movable property is permissible in every country of whose practice the commission was aware. Indeed, in England creditors rely to a greater extent apparently on enforcement against goods as compared with enforcement against earnings.
Further, the commission recognised that every society which considers that people able to pay their debts should be required to do so must have recourse to modes of enforcement which are necessarily coercive. These are limited to diligence against the debtor's person—that is civil imprisonment, which in large measure, this Bill abolishes—or diligence against the debtor's heritable or movable property or his income. The commission considered that abolition was feasible only if an alternative method of enforcement could be devised which was as effective and more socially acceptable. In paragraph 2.145 the commission concluded:
Having considered the matter anxiously and at length, we believe that such an alternative cannot be devised.
Having considered the commission's arguments very carefully, the Government are convinced that the right approach must be to retain the diligence of poinding and warrant sale and to adopt the commission's approach. That rejects the introduction of undiscriminating legislation abolishing the diligence or exempting all consumer debtors or all household goods from its operation. However—I stress this—the Bill reforms the diligence so that its impact on debtors is made as humane as is possible consistent with the need to retain the effectiveness of the diligence as a method of eliciting payment from debtors who can but will not pay their debts. The Government consider that the commission has struck a proper balance between the interests of debtors and creditors.
That approach was broadly endorsed by the Scottish Consumer Council, among others, which commented in the consultation undertaken by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate:
We have considered the arguments for and against retaining some residual power of enforcement against a debtor's goods. We conclude that it is necessary to have such a residual power to prevent abuses and act as an ultimate sanction to encourage payment.
Possibly more surprisingly, but similarly, the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties submitted to the Scottish Law Commission in 1983 its comments on the reform proposed. It said that when it came to consider the detailed legislative proposals it recognised
the great distinction between ameliorating the worst consequences of civil diligence for those who cannot pay and legislating against poverty itself.
The council concluded that
there was no practical prospect that the abolition of the warrant sale would have a real effect on poverty, except in the context of much wider reforms of a kind not in prospect at this date.
The council had
the gravest doubts about alternative proposals, including the establishment of debt counselling schemes as a method of enforcement.
Our objective is to see the creation of a coherent statutory policy towards poinding and arrestment that provides all the protections at present available to those who have access to skilled advice and assistance.
While the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties may not regard it as much of a compliment, I wholly endorse the


view expressed in that last passage. It demonstrates an important distinction that it would be proper to maintain both now and later in Committee. There seems to be some confusion of nomenclature in the various stages—debt counselling on an informal voluntary basis, a debt arrangement scheme and debt arbitration as a substitute for all the other enforcement procedures.
One of the main reforms within the existing framework of warrant sales is that exemptions from poinding of household goods are widened. When the Bill was considered in another place, these exemptions were further clarified and widened by, for example, the inclusion of tools needed for the maintenance and repair of the dwelling house and household items. When executing poindings, sheriff officers are not to be allowed to enter a house where there is nobody present, or where only children under the age of 16 are present, without giving four days notice.
Greater opportunities are provided for debtors to redeem goods at their appraised value. This is the price that they would be likely to fetch if sold on the open market. Debtors can apply to the sheriff to release items from the poindings on the ground that their inclusion, on a broad equitable test, is unduly harsh. Sheriffs can recall a poinding on a number of grounds or, at a later stage of the procedure, refuse to grant a warrant for the sale of the poinded goods. A poinding is to last for no longer than one year unless the period is extended to allow the making of payment by instalments. Of particular importance are the changes with regard to the warrant sale.
If there is a matter which has excited anxiety and emotion in this House, it has not been diligence generally but the warrant sale itself. Warrant sales of poinded household goods will in future normally take place in auction rooms without the debtor being publicly identified. The sight of people in Scotland out on the street with a few sticks of their belongings, their circumstances having been widely advertised in their local newspapers, has caused distress. It has attached to our whole system of diligence the description of medieval or barbaric. It is wrong to describe the whole system in that way, but I have no doubt that removing this requirement of sale in a person's own home is an extremely important and humane reform.
A further amendment which the Government brought forward in the other place was to ensure that, where the consent of an occupier is sought to the sale taking place in a dwelling house rather than in a sale room, the consent of every occupier is needed. The Government consider that in total these are substantial reforms which strike the proper balance between the retention of the warrant sale as a spur to payment and the removal of the most resented aspects of the diligence, together with the introduction of new safeguards for the debtor.
I now pass to the question of arrestment of earnings to which the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has already referred. It was plain that reform was needed of the system of earnings arrestment and these reforms are contained in part III. That part introduces three new forms of continuous diligence against earnings: earnings arrestments for ordinary debts; current maintenance arrestments for aliment and periodical allowance; and conjoined arrestment orders in cases where two or more creditors wish to arrest a debtor's earnings. The arrestment of funds or property other than earnings is not affected by the Bill. At present, an arrestment of

earnings attaches to the debtor's earnings due at the next pay day but does not affect the earnings due on a later pay day. The result is that futher arrestments may be needed to obtain payment of a debt.
Moreover, the proportion of a person's earnings in any pay period which is exempt from earnings for an ordinary debt is too low, being half the balance over £4 per week, and probably does not leave enough in some cases for the debtor to live on. In the case of an arrestment enforcing aliment or rates, the whole pay could be attached, leaving the debtor with nothing.
In the new form of earnings arrestment enforcing ordinary debts, the deductions from earnings are set out in the three tables contained in schedule 2 to the Bill. One of the other two forms of arrestments against earnings is the current maintenance arrestment to recover maintenance as it falls due. Such arrangements will be of considerable assistance to a particularly vulnerable group of creditors in the community—dependent spouses or ex-spouses and their children. These changes will enable this group to enforce payment of the maintenance they require as they require it without, as at present, having to wait for arrears to mount up.
I am sure that I can draw on the experience of hon. Members who are, like me, frequently approached by those who have suddenly built up vast arrears of aliment or maintenance and they cannot see a way of clearing them and the problem gets worse. With this new arrangement I trust that payments will be made contemporaneously without that grim eventually coming about.
There are also detailed arrangements in the Bill to deal with what are described as conjoined arrestment orders. Essentially, this extremely complicated part of the Bill ensures that there should not be what is described as a race for diligence. Where more than one creditor seeks diligence, these arrangements will allow more than one creditor to share simultaneously in the debtor's earnings and, simultaneously, for an orderly payment of his obligations in cases of multiple debt—a condition about which Labour Members have expressed interest.
Under a conjoined arrestment order, the employer will be required to make deductions from earnings computed in accordance with the rules of earnings arrestment and current maintenance arrestments, as the case may he, and to pay them to the sheriff clerk, who will disburse those sums to the competing creditors rateably in proportion to the amount of their debts. Schedule 2 shows what sum is affordable out of it. That is paid out to the sheriff clerk, who then takes over the administration.

Mr. Alexander Pollock: In that context, what is the role of the Inland Revenue and the priority claims of which it has had the benefit under current legislation? May I take it from what my hon. and learned Friend has said that the Inland Revenue will no longer be able to exercise that right over the priority claim, or does he intend to deal with that elsewhere?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I wish that my hon. Friend could have drawn that from what I have been saying. I know from correspondence that my hon. Friend had with me last year about a constituent company that he was aware that the Scottish Law Commission had proposed that the Crown's prior claim for arrears of rates and taxes in proceeds of diligence by another creditor should be abolished. The Government agreed that the


state of the law was unsatisfactory. The prior claim for rates has been abolished, bringing into line the position on rates on both sides of the border. However, the prior claim for tax was also considered in the context of the Keith report on the enforcement powers of the revenue departments. The report applied to the United Kingdom as a whole. The Government are consulting on the Keith recommendations as a whole and have proposed that the prior claim should be retained but should be restricted to one year's arrears of PAYE.
My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has arranged for all interested parties in Scotland to have an opportunity to comment on the prior claim. In the circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock) appreciates that it would be inappropriate to bring forward legislation at this stage. Having offered him that opportunity for comment and consultation, and knowing of his previous interest in this matter, I shall doubtless be hearing from him in the near future.
Part IV contains provisions relating to the diligence and priorities for enforcing rates, taxes and Crown debts. Enforcement of rates and tax debts under summary warrants granted by the sheriff will continue to be undertaken by sheriff officers. Summary warrant poindings and sales will be in the same general form as ordinary poindings and sales but with necessary changes, and the diligence of arrestment is to be available for summary warrants for tax arrears as well as rates arrears. Civil imprisonment for non-payment of tax penalties, rates and most civil fines and penalties due to the Crown is abolished.
Part V introduces reforms of the arrangements for the appointment, training, control and discipline of officers of court. The Government agreed with the commission's recommendation that the present system of independent contractor officers of court should not be replaced by a system of salaried court officials. The Bill provides for the setting up of a new body—the Advisory Council on Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers—whose duty is to advise the Court of Session on the making of rules with regard to the regulation of organisation, training, conduct, and so on. Sheriffs principal are to have the power to order routine inspection of the work of officers of court.
Debt collection by officers of court is also subject to further regulation by the Bill. Officers are at present prohibited from enforcing debts due to themselves and this prohibition is to be extended to enforcement on behalf of members of their family, business associates and firms or companies in which they have a controlling interest. Officers of court are expressly prohibited from using their official designations when collecting debts before the creditor has obtained a court decree against the debtor. Officers are required to have the authorisation of the sheriff principal before seeking payment of a debt in a private capacity or through a debt collection agency. That issue may not arouse so much emotion as it did eight or nine years ago. Nevertheless, it is an important and worthwhile change.
Part VI contains provisions dealing with warrants for diligence and charges for payment. These are essentially technical provisions.
Part VII contains miscellaneous and general provisions. These include provisions to assist the debtor in

proceedings under the Act. No court dues are to be payable to the court by a debtor in connection with proceedings under the Act and, if requested by the debtor, the sheriff clerk is required to provide him with information as to the procedures under the Act. Further, the Bill empowers the Court of Session to make court rules which may provide that a party to the sheriff court proceedings under any provision of the Bill may be represented, in such circumstances as may be specified in the rules, by someone who is neither an advocate nor a solicitor.
Hon. Members will be aware that there has been for a considerable number of years a general desire to reform the law relating to enforcement of debts so as to achieve a proper balance between the interests of debtors and of creditors. The Bill introduces the necessary reforms. They are necessarily complicated and detailed. Nevertheless, I trust that they will be widely welcomed on both sides of the House as achieving a long-desired and necessary reform of the law of Scotland.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Opposition give a general welcome to the Bill, although we should have liked to see more meat on its bones. It is a slightly more tepid piece of drafting than we wanted. The Solicitor-General for Scotland might wish to respond to our regret that the Law Commission's sensible proposals have not been met in full. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not reassure us. It would be interesting if he told us why the Government have decided not to take on board all the Law Commission's proposals, some of which are very important.
My hon. Friends would like to go beyond what the Law Commission suggested on some issues. Some were discussed by Labour Members in another place and will not be new to the Solicitor-General for Scotland who, I am sure, is studying them carefully. I cannot disguise, nor would I wish to hide, the Labour party's distaste for warrant sales in any shape or form. We want them to end. If the Bill is acceptable in the meantime, it is because it has moved just a bit in that direction. The Labour party believes that it has not moved far enough.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland referred to the time-to-pay orders, which we welcome. We recognise that they involve the debtor in finding a solution to his own problem and, in that way, much of the stigma of diligence is thereby removed. But there are two important shortcomings. First, we do not believe that a time-to-pay order should be available only on the specific application of the debtor. Many people who find themselves in severe debt do not have available to them the information or advice to make them aware of their obligations.
Since the Solicitor-General for Scotland has given such weight to some of the other views of the Scottish Consumer Council, perhaps he will bear in mind this comment:
It is not clear to us that debtors, who in the main are poor and disadvantaged, will have the necessary information and skills to be able to take this initiative.
The Labour party believes that it should be open to the court or even to the creditor to propose the implementation of a time-to-pay order. We urge that on the Government.
Secondly, time-to-pay orders are not available, as the Solicitor-General for Scotland has confirmed, for nonpayment of rates and taxes. That is incredible. The Government argue that Government Departments and local authorities are to be trusted to use their powers of enforcement in a reasonable manner. That is a somewhat uncharacteristic, if touching, faith in the goodwill of local authorities, and perhaps even of other Government Departments. I do not share that faith and the report in The Scotsman this morning suggests that many others do not share it either.
I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will not mind if, as a constituency Member. I refer to a case which was drawn to my notice during the summer recess. It contains a number of messages for us as we consider the Bill both now and in Committee. At the beginning of the recess, one of my constituents, who was seriously ill, came to my house and said that she was in considerable distress because her young daughter and her husband had purchased a house on the basis of being owner-occupiers and had become involved in a very heavy mortgage which, in time, they found that they could not meet. They had not been able to resist the blandishments of people selling all kinds of modern wonders, home equipment and the rest. The result was that the young couple went from one credit group to another, from one finance house to another and, like many other young couples in this position, I regret to say, found themselves caught in a spider's web. In due course, they had to leave their owner-occupied house and the local council allocated them a house in an area which is described as "difficult to let".
The mother was concerned because that day a warrant sale was to take place. She posed a fundamental legal question to me which became relevant if we are considering giving so many powers to local authorities and public bodies. She asked whether, after the first warrant sale had taken place, she would be free to use some of her savings—not very much, but the limited amount that she had to ensure that the young couple had enough furniture to keep their home going—as a gift.
She asked, "If I use my money and make a gift to my daughter and my son-in-law, does that mean that there can be yet another warrant sale and that they can take the gift of the goods that I have just given them?" I did not know the answer. With great confidence, I said, "I shall be going to Edinburgh today anyway, so I shall pop into the Crown Office and, no doubt, the officials will tell me."
I popped into the Crown Office and revealed to all the security people I met that I was carrying the Serjeant at Arms' identification card. After a few minutes, I found myself in the main building, which hon. Members would recognise. I was told by a fairly senior civil servant that, notwithstanding the fact that I was showing the Serjeant at Arms' ID card, I had no right to be there. He told me to get out and to leave the precincts.
We must remember that an ordinary person is expected to cope with such treatment. The Government are asking us to have faith in local authorities and public bodies that are said to be sympathetic. I am happy to say that I was rescued by a more senior member of staff, who acted more professionally and arranged for me to be given the advice that I should have been given initially. I drew the matter to the attention of the Lord Advocate, who acted promptly and correctly, for which I thank him.
If it is so difficult for a Member of the House to obtain such information, what makes the Solicitor-General think

that ordinary wee folk, who may be terrified of authority, can obtain the information and help from local authorities and public bodies that the Bill suggests? I hope that in Committee the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General for Scotland will agree to think again.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland referred to poinding and warrant sales. I was grateful to the Law Commission for getting the pronunciation right. I thought that the commission's report was very helpful, although I must say that at a cost of £32, albeit for two documents, we are all paying for our education. Having said that, I withdraw none of the congratulations of myself and my hon. Friends.
The system of poinding and warrant sales is antiquated and humiliating. It is not a reasonable system for collecting debts, and it invites reforms. The Bill suggests reforms, which we welcome and will welcome again in Committee. For instance, a vast extension in the range of goods to be exempt from poinding has been introduced in the Bill as a result of legal action. We are told that children's toys, most items of furniture, essential working tools and so on, will be included. Creditors will no longer be able to force a sale in the debtor's house, and we welcome that as well. It would be churlish to do otherwise. The old system whereby publicity was given in a community was very humiliating and I am happy that that too is being removed. Again, it would be churlish not to welcome that. However we deal with the matter, we must ensure that we remove every obstacle in the way of people's dignity, and any suggestion of humiliation for the person, his family and his neighbourhood.
Given that Opposition policy is the abolition of warrant sales, there are some questions that we should ask. For example, the list of items exempted from poinding prompts the question, "Why should warrant sales be retained at all?" The Government's only argument is that such sales provide the ultimate sanction. In another place, Lord Morton suggested more practical final sanctions. We shall ask the Government to consider such alternatives in Committee.

Mr. Barry Henderson (Fife, North-East): I should not like to misunderstand the hon. Gentleman. What does he suggest as a final sanction?

Mr. Clarke: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) is offering himself as a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill. If so, I shall be happy to develop that point then. In the meantime, the hon. Gentleman may find time to read the speech of my noble Friend.
We are told that tools of trade are to be exempt from poinding up to a value of £500. In view of modern technology, individual tools of trade may be worth more than that. That is certainly true of computers. Surely the principle of exemption is to avoid depriving the debtor of has ability to earn. If that is to be achieved, the upper value limit of £500 should be at least doubled, and perhaps even trebled. We shall press for that in Committee.
We are told that medical aids and equipment will be exempted only if they are reasonably required. We feel that all medical aids and equipment should be exempt from poinding or sale. Decisions on what is required cannot be left in the hands of a law officer whose expertise arid qualifications do not extend to medical science; nor should he be asked for an opinion on such matters.
Creditors can no longer force a sale in a debtor's house, but the procedure will still be permitted if the debtor can be persuaded to agree to it. A debtor might be persuaded to allow a sale in his home so as to leave as large a sum as possible for an outstanding debt. That is an unhealthy aspect of the Bill. The debtor's family might suffer indignity, even if they were occupiers. Children would obviously have little say in the matter. Moreover, the stigma could stick to other members of the family in the community. That is another point that we shall pursue in Committee.
The question of diligence against earnings is a central feature of the Law Commission's report. We welcome the changes made by the Bill, especially the introduction of a system of continuous diligence against earnings, which will avoid the need for continuous arrestment against those earnings. The arrangements for imposing maximum arrestment sums are sensible, and will help the system to work more fairly.
However, our welcome for those proposals is severely dampened by the Government's refusal to accept the Law Commission's proposals for the introduction of a debt arrangement scheme. The suggestion has been backed by the Law Society and the Scottish Consumer Council, and we agree that the proposed scheme would deal sensibly and fairly with the problem of multiple debt.
The Government's cavalier rejection of the scheme is based on the assertion that multiple indebtedness is a minor problem that does not justify the cost of the commission's suggested solution. We strongly dissent from that view. The Government seriously underestimate the level of multiple debt. It is a major and growing problem in Scotland, to which a debt arrangement scheme would offer a workable solution. It is the only practical solution that has been suggested, but, rather than proposing an alternative, the Government are trying to suggest that the problem does not exist. They are wrong, and we shall argue strongly for the introduction of such a scheme, here and in Committee. I therefore ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland to explain his objections in greater depth and to accept the well-meant and seriously researched proposals by the Law Commission, because so far we find the commission's views on these matters more convincing than those of the Government.
It is impossible for the House to consider the Bill without giving thought to the growing problem of debt in our society, which is a much wider issue. I do not believe that we can solve the problem without recognising the influence of that development. Under the present Government, there has been a vast expansion of personal debt. In Scotland, the present Administration have overseen an increase of 30 per cent. per year in the number of severe debt problems.
In Coatbridge, in my constituency, the number of cases made known to the citizens advice bureau in 1986 has increased by 133 per cent. The figures of debt inquiries at the citizens advice bureau in Bath street, in Glasgow, tell a worrying story. In January 1987 that office dealt with personal debt to the value of £250,000. In February, that figure reached £312,000. The average size of personal debt dealt with was £11,000 per person or family. The largest personal debt was an alarming £37,000. On this evidence indebtedness is certainly a growing social problem. The Bill deals with the symptoms, but they are the tip of the

iceberg. It has not got to the heart of the matter and we are concerned that it should. There is also the problem of fuel poverty. That problem will remain with us until we properly address ourselves to the serious problems that people endure.
It is impossible to judge the extent to which the difficulties are due to low wages or to the ease with which credit is made available. Moreover, the Paymaster General's solution— if I may refer to it — of reducing wages still more in areas of high unemployment is hardly one that appears to be helpful. In addition Lord Ross of Marnock has rightly warned us that there will be still more difficulties if the community charge is introduced in Scotland.
The fact that the Bill is required emphasises how right the shadow Chancellor is to warn the Government of the dangers of creating the false impression of economic growth based on irresponsible consumer credit arrangements, which the unemployment-stricken people in Scotland simply cannot afford.
It is with all that in mind that we shall closely examine the Bill. We shall examine it constructively and when we are given the opportunity, we shall seek to strengthen it. We shall also monitor it most carefully and earnestly following its enactment.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: Fortunately, I have not been involved with a great number of my constituents facing warrant sales. However, I remember when I was in local government that several people came to me in great distress, sometimes with only 24 hours to go before the sheriff officers were due to enter their houses and attach their possessions prior to warrant sale.
It was not unusual for me to have the diligence procedure postponed to give the debtors more time to sort something out. Once the circumstances were explained to the firm of sheriff officers, the problems seriously considered—incredibly, often for the first time by the debtor — and an explanation given to the creditor, together with some plan of repayments, the worst eventuality was usually staved off.
For many people, especially those without the middle-class cachet of overdraft facilities, debt is similar to a vortex that sucks them in, and they lose control. I am inclined to agree with Opposition Members who have discussed the plastic explosion. There are some cases nowadays when people are offered no-deposit credit. If anything, that is the most dangerous form of credit available, and it can cause many problems.

Mr. Michael Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is worse than she has described—[Interruption.]

Mrs. McCurley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If my hon. Friend is making a point to me during the course of my speech, is it in order for Opposition Members to try to intervene, thus making it impossible for me to understand what my hon. Friend says?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): What the hon. Lady complains about is not in order.

Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is worse than she has described, because much of the most available plastic


money credit carries annual interest rates of about 35 per cent. compared with the 13 or 14 per cent. that one may pay on a personal overdraft?

Mrs. McCurley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I concur heartily with him. My hon. Friend will be aware that in many instances certain types of shops and firms attract particular types of individual. Those are the businesses that charge percentages higher than the average, and that is especially reprehensible.
One of the worst aspects is that many people panic and run away from debt. Often, when debt has been accumulated, it is as long as two or three years before a creditor takes the type of action that leads to a warrant sale. That is a long time. It demonstrates that a warrant sale is a court of last resort.
Not all debtors are victims. We have heard today that in 1975 only 700 decrees out of 80,000 ended in warrant sales. My hon. and learned Friend also point out that firms as well as householders were involved. That suggests that in some instances mistakes, incompetence, quirks of circumstance or downright bloody-mindedness had a part to play, until the heavy warning came at last. In the truly sad cases the relief of the debtor when someone takes over control of his problem, together with the general reasonableness of the creditor, has never ceased to amaze me. Ironically for some, the due process was a relief in itself, albeit humiliating and disastrous. In Committee we should consider debt counselling services and investigate how such services may be implemented. It is important to get that matter right.
I am extremely pleased that the Government have had the good sense to tackle this messy area of law on the excellent advice of the Scottish Law Commission. They have done so in a way that does not afford the debtor the opportunity to escape his responsibility, but holds out hope to both the debtor and creditor.
The two main objectives of the Bill, which are based on the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission, are effective enforcement, by which creditors can be confident of recovering debt, and debtor protection. No longer will basic household goods that are needed, but are not absolute necessities, such as books or children's toys be held for sale. Instead of appealing to a councillor, a Member of Parliament or a citizens advice bureau to act like the fifth cavalry, a wide-ranging system of applications to the sheriff will be established.
The warrant sale will no longer come out of the blue and shock the debtor. I have seen that happen in many instances. A sale, if it reaches that position, will not be held in the debtor's home. Anonymity should take the Victorian censoriousness out of the system and fend off both prurient press and neighbours.
The more humane system of continuous diligence against earnings will ensure that debtors can, at least financially, survive the ordeal. Likewise, when a married man who is separated gets into a pickle over maintenance or when he is being bolshie over payments, his wife can be assured of continuity of payments through current maintenance arrestment. Therefore, the family is saved from some further agony in an already painful situation. I have never known any sheriff officers to act officiously, but in a potentially explosive situation human failings emerge. Increased control and scrutiny, as described by the Bill, will impose a more professional, if not more humane, outlook on sheriff officers who have transgressed.
The Bill may not satisfy the Opposition entirely, but I wish to reinforce the fact that it is necessary to have some ultimate sanction. Debts cannot suddenly evaporate. I am convinced that only the real chronics, as it were, need fear the new legislation. I support the Bill because it reflects a sympathetic and humane approach to those whose lives have deteriorated into a dreadful financial muddle.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I listened carefully to the considered speech of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs McCurley) and I was pleased that she addressed herself to the increasing problem of plastic credit, which is now so freely available, and said that she is in favour of personal debt arrangement schemes. I follow her in that and I hope that we shall be able to return to that issue when the Bill is considered in Committee and on Report. The argument for such schemes was also advanced eloquently by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).
I wish to add my welcome to this tightly drawn and technical measure. I think that it could more appropriately be called the "Diligence Bill", because the Bill does not begin to address the wide range, panoply and extent of the debt problems that face those of limited means who get themselves into financial difficulties in Scotland. A Bill which addressed debtors' problems would tackle these, but it is of course right that we move on from the provisions of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1838, which presently governs the process of diligence in Scotland and is now out of date. I for one deeply regret the demise of the Hornings Act 1579. In my previous incarnation, I spent much time tormenting sheriff officers. There was great sport to be had. As I am sure the House, or the Solicitor-General for Scotland, will know, sheriff officers have to be punctilious in following statutory diligence procedures. It was always possible to twist their tail severely if they failed to adhere to those procedures and to report them to the sheriff, using the Hornings Act and the like. That was good sport, but all that is being swept away, probably quite properly, by the provisions of the Bill.
The process of trade, commerce and business, and especially that of the retail sector, has changed radically since 1838. In those days people were much more likely to know personally those with whom they were trading. In the small towns and areas that I represent, for example, there was little chance of anyone being given a higher credit rating than he or she deserved. That was because communities were much smaller and more closely knit. That is no longer the position. Multiple retail stores today take a clinical view of debt. They decide that they can withstand annually say 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. debt write-offs. They adopt a completely dispassionate view and pursue any subsequent debt default ruthlessly. Some of them do so as a matter of principle and without regard to the cost-effectiveness of the action that they are pursuing. That approach, taken together with the iniquities of the warrant sale system, causes a great deal of hardship and distress.
As the Solicitor-General for Scotland has said, the twin objects of the Bill should be rightly and properly the achieving of a good system of enforcing debt by diligence and debtor protection, and it must be tested against those two propositions. That leaves for further and future consideration important areas such as credit provision, the levels of security that should properly be required,


provision of debt counselling and small debtors' courts, which continue to form an important part of the wider argument.
These issues are of fundamental importance, especially as the consumer boom develops inexorably and people are taken through the courts with decrees for debt being enforced against them. The Bill is half a loaf; it is better than no bread but there is still the other half of the law relating to these other matters to be tackled at another stage at a future date.
My main concern is the need for continuing debtor protection. It is important in today's retail trading conditions that those who run businesses should understand that they are able to look after themselves and their own commercial interests. I have in mind the simplification of the whole process of diligence and in particular the attachment of earnings provisions that are contained in the Bill. If the process of diligence is made a lot easier, it will tend to be used more often. When I was a practising legal agent before coming to the House I rarely advised clients that the process of wage arrestment should be pursued because of its confounded difficulties. If it is made more efficient and expeditious, legal agents will be saying, "It is such a smooth, streamlined and efficient system that it should be used more readily." That is a potential danger that we should bear in mind.
I wish the House to consider carefully the position of those who cannot pay as opposed to those who will not. Those who will not pay deserve to be taken all the way down the avenue of enforcement that is contained in the Bill. In my view, and in my experience as a constituency Member, there is an increasing debt problem, and especially multiple debt.
The Scottish Law Commission's report perhaps did not address that aspect of the problem with as much energy and vigour as some of us would have wished. I am talking about those who find themselves in difficulty because of fuel debts to the electricity boards or gas boards. There are also those in rent arrears. The problem of mortgage arrears is increasing. There are also those who find themselves in difficulty after having used postal club books and catalogues to equip their households and clothe their families. I have in mind especially those who get into trouble because they are in debt to the extent of about £150. It is almost inevitable that these people find themselves on supplementary benefit, unemployment or sickness benefit, though they might not have been when they took on the debt initially. When they go over the top there is little hope for them.

Mr. Hirst: Is it the hon. Gentleman's experience that the voluntary code applied by electricity boards and gas boards works in a fair way and ensures that there are no disconnections, especially during winter months, for certain deserving categories of the public?

Mr. Kirkwood: I must concede that it is much better now than it was. There is a long way to go, but the code of practice has improved the situation a great deal. That is a valid point the House should bear in mind.

Mr. Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the rate of disconnections for short-term debtors has exploded considerably during the past six months, both to electricity

boards and to gas boards? I think that there has been about a 40 per cent. increase in the number of those in debt to the electricity boards.

Mr. Kirkwood: I recognise that to be true. I understood the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) to be saying, however, that the system is working better than it was. There may be more debtors, but the process and the way in which the electricity boards are approaching the problems of disconnection have improved. That is my experience, but I stand to be corrected by hon. Members who may have had a different experience.
The cost of a poinding includes the cost of a decree and court expenses in addition to the amount of the debt. Account must also be taken of the interest that runs during the course of the repayment of the principal sum, including court expenses. These are all additional expenses and expenditures that go on top of the principal sum. I referred earlier to a debt of £150, and the process means that the final sum to be repaid is significantly higher than the original debt. I hope that further consideration will be given to diligence costs in Committee. I am worried about the imbalance.
I want to return to the argument about debt arrangement schemes. The hon. Member for Monklands, West made his position clear; I support him. We can explore the arguments in further detail in Committee and hear what the Government have to say.
I want assurance from the Government about social fund loan repayments. The Solicitor-General for Scotland may not want to address the point today but I give him notice that I shall raise it in Committee. Under current legislation, if loans made by the social fund are not repaid, do we use the process of diligence? If so, are people subject to civil imprisonment for non-repayment of loans? I do not think that that is likely, but I want to ensure that between now and Committee stage the Government will give thought to the matter because it is important.
The repayment of rates and tax debts by instalments should be permissible. Under clauses 1 and 5 the Government are setting their face against that. The Scottish Consumer Council has commented on it. I think that the Government's position is wrong.
Like the hon. Member for Monklands, West, I think that we should stop completely auction sales in a person's home if he or his family still live there. There is no excuse for that. If furniture is to be taken to auction rooms, auctioneers will charge fees for moving that furniture; sometimes they charge as much as 20 per cent. of the value of the furniture. Again that involves additional costs for the debtor.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I understand why the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), given his constituency, would in 99 cases out of 100, if not in 100, find it impossible to believe that a debtor would want to have the warrant sale in his own home. But the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who represents a rural constituency where auction rooms may be remote from where the property is, might feel that, rather than incurring the additional expense of an auction room sale miles away from the person's home, particularly if the person intends to sever his connection with that part of the world, it would be


better value for money to have the sale on the spot. I stress that it is entirely a matter of consent. If the person does not consent, the sale has to take place in an auction room.

Mr. Kirkwood: I take that point. I think that there should be a restriction on the fees charged for moving furniture, but I am prepared to discuss that in Committee.
The Scottish Consumer Council is right to ask for the exemption of all medical aids and equipment used by the debtor and his family. The sheriff officer will be put in an impossible position in exercising his discretion under clause 16(1)(c). Clause 16(1)(b) should also be examined again. The exemption of £500 for tools of the trade is too low. We can discuss that too in Committee.
I give the Bill a general welcome. It is technical but it will improve the position. We have to he careful about how the Bill will impact on the small scale debtor who is invariably claiming supplementary or other benefits. That category of person will suffer most if we do not get the Bill's provisions right.

Mr. Barry Henderson: It is encouraging that a Bill of such complexity and sensitivity is not politically controversial. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who generally presents the acceptable face of the Labour party, said that he would like the Bill to go further in respect of warrant sales but avoided spelling out how that should be done. Since 1968, the Scottish Law Commission has been considering the matter. For many years the Labour party has been pressing for something to be done about humanising—if that is the right word—warrant sales. The Government are now doing something. Unless the Opposition have worked out what they would do differently, it would have been more generous for the hon. Gentleman to give an unqualified welcome to the Bill in that respect.
The Bill removes the unacceptable Dickensian features of warrant sales procedure and gives some rights to debtors. I congratulate the Scottish Law Commission which has worked so long and—if one may be forgiven the pun—so diligently trying to find a solution to the problem. It started the process with a two volume report in 1985, and then there were successive consultations on which the Bill is based.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) made a distinction between people who will not pay and people who cannot pay their debts. It is a fundamentally important distinction. We should make it clear to all our constituents that the law will still come down hard on people who will not pay, as distinct from those who cannot, for one reason or another, legitimately fulfil their obligations. In this respect it would help if, from the earliest age and throughout their growing years, children were reminded of their duties and obligations, as well as of their rights.
Unlike the hon. Member, I am not familiar with these procedures so I was interested to read the Poinding Act 1661 which noted that if promises, pactions, obligements and debts were not faithfully performed and satisfied, there could be no trust and consequently no social intercourse and commerce at home. That is true. We must get it across to people that if they do not fulfil their obligations there will be serious consequences for all of us.
In opening the debate, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland gave some figures. I did not

catch all of them so perhaps he will come back to them in his reply. I understood him to say that there were in Scotland about 80,000 cases, of which 700 involved warrant sales. In the debate in another place, Lord Ross of Marnock referred to 38,000 cases in one year in Strathclyde, of which only seven involved warrant sales. If one of those sets of figures is not wrong, there seems to be a great disparity between what has happened in Strathclyde and elsewhere in Scotland.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The figures I gave were 80,000 debt decrees granted by Scottish courts. As I recollect, Lord Ross of Marnock was referring specifically to decrees involving rates, of which only seven eventually finished up as warrant sales.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for clarifying that.
If those who are less well off are to get fair terms and conditions for credit sensibly taken, it is important that society as a whole does not allow people to get away with not paying the dues for which they make themselves liable. Therefore, we have to strike the proper balance between encouraging people to fulfil their obligations and not being inhuman in the application of the law.
As I said earlier, the Labour party has long talked about doing something about warrant sales. I am delighted that it is this Government who have taken action. I particularly congratulate my hon. and learned Friend because he has taken a special interest in the matter since he came into the House, even before he reached his present high office. Apart from the weight of the Bill, it will be very important. On present form, it seems that such Bills last for about 150 years before they are changed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) made an important point about avoiding debt. The Scottish Consumer Council has been helpful to hon. Members by looking closely at the legislation and making a number of suggestions.
In a letter that I believe was circulated to all hon. Members on 5 March, the Scottish Consumer Council complained in the nicest possible way that the Bill, although making many improvements, did not deal with, for instance,
controls of the informal debt recovery process such as the operation of debt collection agencies, other sanctions for debt such as disconnection of fuel services or evictions or the scope for money advice services. Therfore, the Bill's proposals concentrate on improving court processes and can certainly not be regarded as the 'solution' to the problems of consumer debt".
It would be interesting, on another occasion, to consider the sort of problems that would remain once the Bill was on the statute book.
It is important to recognise that easier credit is no kindness to anyone, least of all the less well off. Anyone who is involved in providing credit should concern himself not only with the possibility of the person repaying, but with his capacity to do so in a reasonable way. It is not just a question of assets.
I particularly welcome clause 18, under which sheriff officers will not be allowed to enter premises if children under 16 are alone in the house. That is most desirable.
The Scottish Consumer Council mentioned that it wants medical aids or equipment to be exempt, and the hon. Member for Monklands, West referred to that. I am not convinced by the case advanced by the council. Under the Bill, such aids will be exempt only if the court officer


executing the poinding considers that they are reasonably required for the use of the debtor or his family. If they are not reasonably required, why should they be exempt?

Mr. Kirkwood: That is a medical judgment.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a medical judgment. Let me give an example in which it is not. A bath chair—a relic from the turn of the century—might be regarded as a medical aid. Other hon. Members could give examples. Some medical aids or equipment may have no conceivable connection with anyone in a given household. Should they be exempt simply because they are medical aids? A house might contain objects, such as an antique stethoscope, which might be regarded as having value as an asset.
It is too quick and easy to say that medical aids and equipment should be exempt. What if one of the problems of the household is drug addiction? I am not a sheriff's officer, but I would not know the difference between a "druggies'" equipment and medical aids or equipment. We should look further into this question and I am not yet convinced that we should change the wording of the Bill.
I am more sympathetic towards the point made by the Scottish Consumer Council on the £500 ceiling on exemption for tools of trade. There is a case for making that figure higher. I do not know what provision would be made for indexing that figure and perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland will clarify that.
I declare an interest as a member of the British Computer Society. I notice that the council uses computers as an example in which the ceiling might be more than £1,000. I am not sure whether that is important. The price of computers is falling and one can buy a sizeable computer for under £500 nowadays. There are many other tools of trade of which a modest range might easily add up to £1,000.

Dr. Godman: Shipwrighting, for instance.

Mr. Henderson: People in trades such as shipwrighting must have their own tools because they are not provided by their employer.
The Scottish Consumer Council also said that it was disappointed that the Bill did not allow instalment orders for arrears of rates and taxes to be made. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will take note of what the hon. Member for Monklands, West said about that, as he is an ex-president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The hon. Member for Monklands, West did not accept—nor did the Scottish Consumer Council—that local and central Government are always as sympathetic to debtors as are ordinary creditors.
Less secrecy about the way in which the high street banks calculate interest and bank charges might also help those who come within the ambit of the Bill. Not long ago one of my constituents had an argument with his bank about the calculation of interest on his account. Eventually, the bank said, "OK, we have done you for too much, but we won't tell you how we have calculated that. However, we will let you have a near £10,000 reduction in your interest bill." My constituent was not likely to have to have a warrant sale, but it is not untypical for a farmer to carry a substantial overdraft.

Dr. Godman: Or a fisherman.

Mr. Henderson: If people with overdrafts cannot work out what the interest payments on their accounts are at any given time, it ill behoves the banks to say, "You must pay so-and-so."
The banks have been less than honourable in withholding from their customers information to which they are legitimately entitled. If anyone is asked to pay a bill, he should be given full and explicit details of why. I do not understand how the banks have got away for so long with not spelling out exactly how the interest on accounts is calculated or how bank charges are accumulated.
If the banks do not put their house in order themselves, I trust that this House will put it in order for them before long. I appreciate that the Bill would not be the best instrument to do that, but I hope that there will be an opportunity to take up the matter in the House soon.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde said, one of the most important ways to keep people out of the sort of problems that we are addressing is to get them to face up to the problem of debt as soon as it is identified. When someone is in trouble he should never go on worrying. He should seek advice at the earliest possible moment either from the person to whom he owes money or from other sources, such as a citizens advice bureau. People must face their problems as soon as they are identified so that they can be helped to resolve them in a rational way, rather than under the anxiety and pressure that people often experience when they are in debt. If they deal with their problems in a rational and sensible way, they will not need to be worried by the Bill's provisions.

Mr. Bruce Milian: The Bill deserves a general welcome. Most of the points that need to be made about it have been made. I shall simply emphasise a number of points already made by hon. Members, and especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).
In some cases credit is all too easily available, and that is a problem. Anyone with a bank card is inundated with letters offering more and more money on easy credit. Unfortunately, many people who are not very wealthy, and some who are in poor circumstances, become involved in excessive credit. The poorer the person, the more such money costs. The better off one is, the easier it is to get credit at reasonable rates. There is a problem there, but the Bill does not pretend to get rid of it: it deals with its consequences. However, as I have said, the Bill is generally welcome.
I share the view expressed by other hon. Members that there seems to be no justification, either in principle or in practice, for the exclusions in clause 1 which deals with payment by instalments. I am not sure about the reference to the Inland Revenue regarding payment
as if it were tax".
Presumably that relates to national insurance contributions as well as tax. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point in clause 1(5)(d).
On taxation generally, some of the VAT practices are damaging, especially to business. Obviously there has been a tidying up of VAT procedures, but there is no reason why firms that are able to pay their VAT on time should get extended credit, while other firms in similar circumstances pay their bills on time. The Inland Revenue


and Customs and Excise have everything in their favour. In this case they will be excluded from the instalment procedures and they have preference in insolvency and bankruptcy legislation. The Solicitor-General for Scotland will recall that we had arguments about the extent of the preference that they ought to have during the progress of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.
The Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are well protected in terms of debts, and I see no reason in principle or in practice for excluding them from the instalment system under clause 1. I have had one or two constituency experiences of Customs and Excise vigorously pursuing debts. No doubt the authorities were acting under instructions, as they are at the moment, in view of the general determination of the Government to tighten VAT procedures. However, this pursuit has been carried out. Other creditors were being supportive of small firms while Government agencies were driving them into liquidation. That is undesirable. It is another example of making special rules for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. I do not like that, and I hope that it can be amended in Committee.
Payment by instalments should not be on the application of the debtor, as is provided for in clause 1. Such a system sounds simple and perhaps even desirable, but in many cases the debtor is not sufficiently aware of it to make the application. I see no reason why that restriction should appear in the Bill. There is no reason why the court should not decide to make an order for payment by instalments, even if there is no specific application by the debtor. Again, I hope that that will be amended in Committee.
I agree with those who say that we should ban warrant sales in the debtor's home. The Bill goes a long way towards that, but it is unrealistic in some cases to look upon the debtor and creditor as being equally able to take decisions. In such situations one of the parties is under much pressure and sometimes suffers from a great deal of emotional stress. Therefore, he is not able to make sensible or rational decisions. I, and I think many hon. Members, would prefer to see the complete exclusion of warrant sales taking place in a debtor's home. I hope that the Government will not stick to the Bill's provisions. If we are to reduce the possibility of such sales to a small minority of cases, it is far better to abolish the provision for them. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree with that.
There has been some discussion about the poinding exclusions in clause 16. The exclusions in clause 16 make it difficult to see what is left—except perhaps a motor, car, television set, a radio or a video. It would be desirable if legislation could be drafted to provide a list of the things that could be poinded, rather than a list of the exclusions. Of course we are talking about dwelling houses, not business premises. There is perhaps some difficulty about drafting such legislation, but if we consider the list of exclusions and take account of expenses and the difficulty of getting reasonable sums at auction for some of the goods taken from debtors' homes—unless one seizes a motor car or perhaps an expensive motor cycle or a television set—we see that it is not worth going through the trouble of poinding arrangements, the warrant sale, and so on.
Unfortunately, because of the way the Bill is drafted and the judgment of the value of items being in the hands of the sheriff officer, it will still be possible to take from domestic premises lots of things which at the end of the

day will realise very little at auction. However, their seizure can cause considerable hardship to the debtor, even if he does not come within the strict definitions and exclusions of clause 16. Perhaps that matter can be examined in Committee.
It would be much better if, in practice, whatever the definitions of the legislation, only substantial items were subject to poinding, and only in cases where one could not really argue that one was dealing with an essential item of equipment. If we are to have warrant sales at all, that would be the best solution. Most hon. Members would like to abolish warrant sales altogether. However, there is a difficulty about the debtor who deliberately refuses to pay, even when he may be able to do so and where, for one reason or another, the earnings arrestment arrangement cannot be implemented. The easier earnings arrestment arrangements in the Bill should be an incentive to avoid the poinding and warrant sale procedure—certainly in the case of anyone who is in work.
Rightly, one has always tended to emphasise the humiliation involved in selling off a debtor's furniture in his own home, but there is also considerable humiliation in the arrestment of earnings. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said in an intervention, it does not do a person any good with his employer to have an arrestment put on his wages. The employer may not be able directly to punish an employee by dismissal, but we all know that in many cases, when faced with this kind of situation, an employer may decide that he has a troublesome and undesirable employee. In practice, many people must have lost jobs because of an arrestment of earnings. That is by no means an easy option compared with poinding and warrant sales. The Bill makes the process easier and puts an effective weapon into creditors' hands. It is a sanction that in many cases will make debtors, who are able to pay their bills but are perhaps reluctant to do so, think again. Many such matters should be pursued in Committee.
The Bill is generally to be welcomed, but it suffers from a number of defects. Some could easily be put right by simple amendments. I hope that hon. Members who serve on the Committee—I do not apply for such service—will endeavour to put matters right so that we shall have a worthwhile piece of legislation.

Mr. Michael Hirst: I believe that the House will gibe a warm welcome to the Bill and congratulate the Government on implementing the report of the Scottish Law Commission on diligence. I have heard frequent references in the debate to the worthy document that the commission has produced, but, as a non-lawyer, I must say that I like the executive summary of the report's findings rather than its meat. The Bill will probably be thought of in Scotland as the one that brings to an end the indignity of warrant sales in debtors' homes. It is important that we should recognise that other worthy advances are contained in the Bill.
I must confess that I have had no experience of a warrant sale, but I certainly have experienced constituents coming to me in great distress, and normally only a few hours before a warrant sale is due to take place. Anyone who regularly combs through his or her local newspaper must see the pathetic little notices that advise that a warrant sale will take place at the home of a certain person, with the address clearly shown. Such notices heap


misery and indignity on someone who has had the misfortune to get into debt and have a court decree made against them in respect of the non-payment of debt.

Dr. Godman: The position could be even worse for the person concerned. I know of a poor person in my constituency who was caught up in such a predicament. He experienced his neighbours coming to see him because they had been leafletted as if it were some kind of general election campaign. The situation can be much worse than the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Hirst: The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention to a practice which I understand is carried on by people who are known as ghouls. They move in not just to see goods sold at fairly low prices but to be general spectators at a grisly process. There is a supreme indignity in one's neighbours being leafletted about an auction of one's household items.
I believe—this point has been made by one of my constituents with great passion — that a ring operates among traders who customarily attend warrant sales. By consensus, they keep prices down and, in some way, make matters even worse for the debtor in that he or she does not receive full and fair value for the goods sold. Therefore, I welcome the provision in the Bill that ensures that the debtor can receive a fair market value for his or her goods.
The House would make a mistake if it did not recognise that the warrant sale procedure has been an effective tool in the system of diligence. I understand that, in 1985, some 80,000 decrees for debt were awarded by the courts, only 700 of which resulted in warrant sales. As the debate has focused quite reasonably and sensibly on the importance of recognising the existence of a debt and the need for it to be satisfied, we must accept that the warrant sale procedure is effective. Nevertheless, I am delighted to see that the Bill ends what I consider to be the appalling system of holding a sale in a debtor's home. If a debtor wants to have a warrant sale in his or her home, that is all well and good, but, frankly, I believe that it is important—

Mr. Kirkwood: Are there any circumstances in which a debtor would actively seek a warrant sale at home?

Mr. Hirst: Some debtors may be prepared to go through that stigma and misery, but they should have the option of adopting the anonymous process that is identified in the Bill and the various protections that it is able to give them.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) was right to draw attention to the phenomenal growth in credit use and the ease with which people can obtain it, often with little evidence of earnings to sustain capital and interest payments or, indeed, the existence of a job. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland mentioned a report in a Scottish Sunday newspaper stating that a young girl, who I believe was unemployed, had managed to go up and down high streets and obtain credit arrangements amounting to a considerable sum of money.
My experience with the availability of credit was brought home with a vengeance when my wife and I went to buy some new kitchen furniture. Having found some good, solid bits of furniture that looked as though they

could withstand my children's depredations for the next 20 years, we proceeded to purchase it. I offered a cheque to the large store, but it was spurned. I offered an endless array of the plastic money that I have in my wallet, and each was politely refused. I was invited to apply for a credit card at the store. When I said that I did not need any more credit cards, and nor did my wife, I was told that, if I were to buy their card, there would be a discount and a special surprise gift, both of which were acceptable. We got a rather expensive electric coffee maker and another plastic card for my wallet.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Which shop was that?

Mr. Hirst: It would be rather injudicious to mention store names for fear that they instantly terminate the credit arrangements upon which my wife may well depend.
It struck me that the young man was more interested in getting me to take out a plastic card for his store's credit scheme than in selling the goods. I noticed with some interest that, after the plastic card arrived and after I had received the free booty and the discount that was offered, which apparently was not available on payment with a cheque, I noticed that the annual rate of interest—the APR—was about 38·9 per cent. I am happy to say that that store will never get interest at such a usurious rate from me.
Hon. Members have been right to draw attention to the ease with which credit can be obtained and the corresponding problems that occur when people —particularly young people—run into debt. Sadly, if my constituents' experience is anything to go by, when debtors talk about one debt, it turns out that they have multiple debts to many people. In fact, the £51·84 for which bank managers harry them is normally the smallest of the debts that they are trying to pay off.
We should pay tribute to the efforts that are made by the citizens advice bureaux to institute some form of debt counselling. It is particularly welcome. The CAB network has done a powerful job in trying to help people who have got into debt problems. I pay tribute also to the electricity and gas boards. The number of disconections that take place is minuscule compared with the number of customers that they have. The voluntary arrangements to guard against disconnections in special cases of need and hardship are worthwhile and we should recognise them as such.
I accept that debt counselling will not always be appropriate. Whenever there is evidence of a relaxation of a scheme, there are bound to be people who will try to take advantage of it. The House has a duty to protect not only the debtor who gets into a mess but the interests of the person who, for one reason or another, provides credit. I accept that creditors may be pushed into taking legal action simply because a debtor has either dishonoured a voluntary rescheduling of a debt arrangement or has persistently refused to settle a debt.
I am pleased that there is to be an end to imprisonment for non-payment of tax penalties and rates. That was an undesirable legacy of the past which it is impossible to justify in relation to many other debts. It cannot be right that somebody who has defaulted on the payment of his or her rates should take up an expensive place in gaol.
I believe that there will be a general welcome by the House for the arrangements in part I for time-to-pay


directions and time-to-pay orders. If they are used sensibly by the courts, they will be a powerful weapon in their hands—not just so that people avoid getting into worse debt but so that they may he helped through this difficult period on a sensible basis that does not undermine the stability of the family by having all the creditors piling in simultaneously and driving the unfortunate person into personal bankruptcy, with all that that entails.
There can be no benefit to society in a system that allows a court order to be taken against a person if effectively it deprives him or her of the wherewithal to live. Normally the debtor is the bread winner of the family. It would be foolish if the breadwinner were to be stripped of all the money on which his family ought to be living to pay off one debt, thereby incurring future debt in order to stay alive. The present arrangements are onerous, and I am pleased that they are to he relaxed.
The House should welcome the new arrangements for arrestment. I am sure that all hon. Members know of sad cases of a wife or an ex-wife and her children discovering that her husband or former husband has defaulted on maintenance payments, which leads to sadness, worry and difficulty for the woman and her family. It is definitely preferable to have the arrangements set out in the Bill rather than the hit-or-miss arrangements that have existed until now, which mean that if the man defaults on his maintenance payments the woman is put to the inconvenience, worry and cost of going to a lawyer and obtaining a court order. It may lead to a wonderful amount of work for the legal profession, but it is not a civilised way of enforcing debt arrangements.
I am also pleased about the arrangements for conjoined arrestments. There is evidence that those who get into debt with one company, firm or organisation will probably have a series of other debts and that in some cases they juggle the debts between one company and another to obtain a breathing space. A conjoined arrestment has the merit of ensuring that no one creditor will pile in so strongly that that creditor obtains an unreasonable or an unfair preference over the other creditors. Therefore, we should welcome the intention to introduce conjoined arrestment.
I am aware that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) wishes to contribute to this debate, and I do not wish to prolong my speech unreasonably. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that while I have been a Member of this House I have heard a great deal from two hon. Members who are not here this afternoon and whose contributions I should have thought the House would have especially liked to hear. I refer to the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).
I recall the trenchant observations that have been made on past occasions by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West. He has railed the Government for perpetuating the system of warrant sales in debtors' homes because it has brought so much misery and indignity to those unfortunate people. Moreover, not long after I was elected I well remember the hon. Member for Falkirk, West saying that warrant sales were a blight on the face of this Government and emphasised the harsh and uncaring nature of the Government. Therefore, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber to make a contribution to this debate. Then he would have recognised that,

although he and some members of his party prefer to wear their hearts on their sleeves, we on this side of the House intend to take action.

Mr. Milian: No doubt my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) have good reason for not being here today. May I mention that my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) very much regrets that he is unable to be here today. He is not very well. It is nothing serious, but my right hon. Friend would very much have liked to participate in this debate, because he has taken a considerable interest in this question over many years.

Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The whole House pays tribute to the distinguished way in which the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) has pursued this point. He has rightly emphasised in the House over many years, including the time when I was not a Member of Parliament, his distaste of warrant sales and his resolve to bring about a far more civilised arrangement for protecting both the debtor and the creditor. I know that the House would have been all the better for the distinguished contribution that we might have expected from him. I know, too, that the House hopes that lie will recover quickly from the indisposition from which he is currently suffering.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: In view of the obvious disappointment of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) at not being included as a member of the Standing Committee that considered this matter on the last Scottish measure, may I suggest that he should play his part on the Committee that is to consider this Bill?

Mr. Hirst: I expect that there will be discussions between the usual channels. I make the confident prediction that if the hon. Member for Falkirk, West is included as a member of the Standing Committee the Committee will be all the better for it and that we can look forward to vigorous points being made by him.

Dr. Godman: rose—

Mr. Hirst: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene. I shall allow him to do so, but after that I must press on.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) has also been a fierce critic of warrant sales, but unfortunately he has been ill for some time. Nevertheless, I am happy to point out to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that he is well on the way to recovery.

Mr. Hirst: Whatever the Opposition may lack in numbers, they make up for in those who will stand up and cite the roll of honour of their absent colleagues who have done well over the years in highlighting the indignity of warrant sales in the home and their desire that that system should be changed.
Before I gave way to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian), I was saying that I believe that this Government are to be commended for being prepared to enact the report of the Scottish Law Commission. I give the Bill a very warm welcome. I hope that those who are so quick to accuse the Government of


being hard-nosed and uncaring will find that this Bill gives them plenty to chew on and that they will recognise that it shows a most caring attitude on the part of the Government.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Bill deserves a positive, if constructively critical, response. I share the natural modesty displayed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan). I, too, am not volunteering for duty on this Committee, but if press-ganged into doing so I shall. The Opposition Chief Whip is heading my way. That is why I said that.
Indebtedness is a major social problem that afflicts the lives not only of many poor citizens, but of those on low incomes. In many communities in the west of Scotland indebtedness takes the form of that parasitic pest, the moneylender. I regret to say that my constituency is not free of that pestilential nuisance. The poorly paid, the unemployed and single-parent families are often offered by moneylenders what appears to be easy credit. However, there is a sharp sting in this kind of credit because of the huge rates of interest that are demanded by such parasites.
The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) said that it is important that people recognise the dangers of slipping into debt. Some communities are reacting to the problem in a positive manner. Occasionally we hear of working-class communities fighting back and creating their own community-based banks with deposit accounts and loan facilities for depositors.
In my constituency, there is a fine example of such a community bank, situated in an area that is susceptible to debt—the Greenock East Credit Union Ltd., which held its first annual general meeting on Sunday. It now has more than 700 members and continues to grow month by month. The member depositors of that community elect the board of directors and, as depositors, they can obtain loans for sums ranging from £75 to £300. Many of those people subsist on low incomes, and, by way of the community bank, they can avoid credit with high interest rates. We have a community bank of fine repute, under the guidance, hard work and encouragement of Miss Marian Wilson and the Rev. Iain Fraser and their colleagues. That is a fine example of the role that a community can perform in dealing with debt. Such examples can also be found elsewhere.
I should like to see credit unions multiplying in number so that, among other things, people can escape the threat and humiliation of multiple debt and the fear of that harshest of sanctions—the warrant sale. That fear is present in many such communities.
In the main, people slip into debt not because of dishonesty or fecklessness, but because of a worsening in their personal economic circumstances. I share the deep disappointment of my hon. Friends at the Government's insensitive refusal to abandon warrant sales in the Bill. Although warrant sales have involved hundreds, not thousands, of citizens in the past two or three years, they nevertheless inflict humiliation and despair upon those who are affected.
I welcome the innovation of placing warrant sales in local sales rooms, but I do not believe that that is an effective solution, because only paltry sums of money will

be realised by auction. Such items for sale will, in most cases, be puchased by those grubby dealers who hand around or frequent sale rooms in our cities and towns. I have no hard evidence — perhaps the Solicitor-General will correct me if I go badly astray — but I genuinely believe that those dealers organise rings in sales rooms so that they can obtain items for auction at the cheapest possible rate. Therefore, I do not believe that the sale room solution will be effective.
I offer a somewhat qualified welcome to the Bill. It certainly needs amendments to transform it into what could be a fine piece of legislation.
In a brief sent to Scottish Members, the Scottish Consumer Council outlined some of its reservations about the Bill. Perhaps those matters would be better considered in Committee. However, I support the hon. Member for Fife, North-East in saying that the ceiling of £500 for tools of trade is somewhat low. One need not be referring to someone whose tools of trade are, say, a computer and associated facilities; it could be someone who works in a manual trade, albeit of a highly skilled nature, whose tools vastly exceed £500 in value. In a sedentary intervention, I offered the example of a shipwright. However, there are other highly skilled manual workers who possess tools that have cost them much more than £500.
There is an alternative to the warrant sale, whether it is held in the debtor's home or in the local sale room. I support the reservations on that matter expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Govan. If the arrestment of wages sanction were developed in Committee, by way of amendments, could bring about the eventual elimination of warrant sales.
Therefore, this is very much a qualified welcome for the Bill, which I sincerely hope will be subjected to amendment in Committee.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I should like to give a brief welcome to the Bill. It is difficult to disagree with what it purports to do. I am rather surprised that it will take 109 clauses and eight schedules to achieve its aims, but I am at a disadvantage in not being a lawyer.
I should like to make just one point. As I sat here, contemplating what I was going to say, I became convinced that it would be a remarkable point for me to make, and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will perhaps be slightly surprised to hear it coming from me. The Bill tilts the balance in favour of those who provide credit because it enables them, through arrestment of wages, to recover debts more easily than has been possible in the past. I am sure that that is a proper thing to do in balancing the provisions of the Bill, which also mitigates the burden of debt on individuals, but I am not certain that one would be happy for it to be easier for some people to collect debts, given the way in which the credit market is developing, especially for private individuals.
I refer not only to the individuals about whom the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) spoke. He concentrated on people with low incomes in Scotland. However, he knows very well that Scotland has the second highest per capita income of any part of the United Kingdom. The problem of debt is not confined to those who are poor. Of course we have our fair share of people who are hard up, just as we have people in Scotland who are well-to-do. The problem of debt cuts right across the


board. It is a function of the development of plastic money and credit and the incidence of low inflation and high interest rates in the market place.
We have all experienced what happens when an account comes in from Access. Instead of encouraging us to pay it off at the end of the month to avoid paying a penal rate of interest, it asks, "Have you thought of extending your credit limit? Fill in the attached slip and send it off. Your credit limit will be increased by 50 per cent." No effort is made to find out whether, in the meantime, one has taken out other credit cards. If one has done so, one finds, of course, that they send out the same message.
Creditors can do that because they are charging penal and excessive rates of interest. As my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) said, interest rates of 32, 38 or 42 per cent. are obscene. I have little sympathy with the people responsible for that when they try to recover debts from individuals who, perhaps from feeble-mindedness or irresponsibility, get themselves into a desperate financial situation.
The reason why I say to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General that perhaps we should think how we can encourage people in the private market place to be more responsible in dishing out credit is that those people make a commercial judgment. They decide that on a 38 per cent. return they can afford to write off a large proportion of the debt, so they can afford to extend the volume of credit even further, thereby encouraging people who do not realise what they are taking on or understand the real cost of the debt to get themselves into deeper problems.

Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that a most unfortunate practice by some people who push credit hard is that they describe the interest rate as so much per month? While 3 per cent. per month does not sound much, the APR on 3 per cent. per month is approaching 40 per cent. per annum. Does he agree that while that is a matter for consumer credit and is not the responsibility of the Solicitor-General, something needs to be done to highlight better the precise rate of interest that will be paid by someone who enters such a credit sale agreement?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why I am asking the Solicitor-General whether it is possible to make provision in the Bill so that these debt recovery procedures may not be open to those who do not draw clearly to the attention of the borrower exactly what he is embarking on. I realise that my hon. and learned Friend will say that that is unsound and would represent an intervention in the market place, which would be intolerable, and that it is a surprising request from this quarter, but it is a genuine problem.
The problem is not confined to Access cardholders and the plastic money brigade. I am delighted to say that I have been able to find out from my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden the name of the store that is giving away coffee machines in return for accepting its plastic card. The tragedy is that not everyone is as well educated as my hon. Friend or able to take the coffee machine and pay the debt immediately.

Mr. Kirkwood: Did the shop consider the hon. Gentleman's job secure enough to justify any credit?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is not in a position, this week of all weeks, to talk about job security.

[Interruption.] I was making the same distinction between the Liberal party and the alliance as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) made yesterday.
This genuine problem is not confined to credit card companies; it extends to banks. Banks are falling over themselves to encourage people to extend their mortgages. The other day I was astonished to receive a letter from my bank inviting me to borrow more money and extend my mortgage, and saying, "All you have to do is fill in this form and you can borrow and extra £5,000, £10,000 or £20,000." Banks are equally irresponsible. The extent to which they check the evidence of income seems to be limited and they make little effort to check what other obligations people may have.
Such an invitation is tempting. One has only to talk to one's local citizens advice bureau, as we all have done, to see the extent of the temptation to buy today what one would otherwise have to wait some time to acquire. Some credit companies sell their services with advertising, saying, "Why wait? Buy it tomorrow and use your whatever card." Banks, building societies and other credit companies are all on the same kick.
I am a little worried about making it easier for those who are so irresponsible about dishing out credit to recover debts. People who get themselves into debt are among the most vulnerable. Sometimes they are irresponsible. At other times they simply do not know what they are taking on. It is only when the bills start coming in and they find themselves in difficulty — in other words, when it is too late—that they realise the extent of their problems.
I welcome the provision that warrant sales can he held only if the person concerned wishes them to be held in his home and the ending of the practice of putting the name of the person in the local newspaper. That is a tremendous step forward. The whole procedure smacked of the old Calvinist tradition of the cutty-stool. That does not help the debtor to get a grip on his problems and to establish a new basis for advancement.
This is a good measure. I confess that I have not studied every one of the 109 clauses. I shall happily volunteer to serve on the Committee, if only to remind my hon. and learned Friend between now and then to think about ways in which we could put some sanction on those people and give the courts discretion. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke of moneylenders who also charge penal rates of interest, sometimes outwith the law and sometimes within it.

Dr. Godman: May I point out that those of my constituents who, regrettably, have fallen into the hands of those parasites and money lenders are not necessarily feeble-minded or irresponsible? Often they have no choice but to go to such people, and that is a matter for serious regret.

Mr. Forsyth: I shall not argue with the hon. Gentleman about specific cases or fall into the trap of arguing whether people who are put in the position of having no choice are doing the right thing in going to such people. I believe that there is choice, although I accept that people may not be aware of the alternatives or may have made a wrong choice in the first place, getting themselves into debt. However, the hon. Gentleman is certainly right to point out that there are some unpleasant individuals around who exploit the difficulties and miseries of others, but it was ever thus.
I ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider whether it is possible to remove from such people the ability to recover debts more easily, which the Bill provides. He may well have some difficulty in doing so, but I have great faith in the market place. If the credit card companies, the building societies and others who advance credit irresponsibly believed that it would be harder for them to recover debts or that their costs would be increased in so doing, they might stop and think twice. On the other hand, they may simply increase the APR even higher than it is at present, because that has been their strategy to date.
I welcome the Bill and look forward to serving on the Committee, should the powers that be so decide.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) made a number of interesting points—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman needs the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Clarke: With the leave of the House, may I say that if the hon. Member for Stirling is on the Committee, I hope that we can progress from what he has been saying, and perhaps I shall be able to make a better impression on him than I did, for example, on Gartcosh. I live in hope.
I shall not join in the discussion about absent friends or hon. Members. At one point, I thought that some hon. Members who had spoken earlier in the debate had disappeared and left me to reply in their absence. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) has returned. Some of his comments — although he may not have meant this — were helpful. For example, when he flattered me with a certain description, which I shall not repeat because it is on record, I took it as a double compliment, because he referred to Strathclyde region and to the comments of Lord Ross of Marnock in another place.
The hon. Member for Fife, North-East posed the question, and I take it to myself, what is the alternative to warrant sales? In many ways the alternatives are contained in the figures that he gave the House. He talked about the 20,000 people in Strathclyde who were responsible for non-payment of rates. He said that only seven of them had been the subject of warrant sales. I suggest that that means that 19,993 people had been persuaded in other ways to meet their debts. Perhaps that is what this discussion is all about. Most hon. Members made a genuine attempt, on the basis of the report—

Mr. Henderson: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I cannot give way; this is meant to be a brief speech.
Most hon. Members made a genuine attempt, on the basis of the report from the Scottish Law Commission, to find a balance between the debtor and the creditor. We are making an attempt to do that, given the demands of a modern society. We have heard a lot about credit being available — the plastic card society and the rest. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) made a point about interest rates, as did the hon. Member for Stirling, which we appreciate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) made solid points about the social fabric of our

society. I hope that they will serve on the Committee, because I am sure that it would be delighted to hear more from them, especially as it would be based on their experience.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), in an interesting speech which was based on his experiences in court dealing with sheriff officers and others—

Mr. Kirkwood: As a lawyer.

Mr. Clarke: I am sure that the House will bear that in mind. The hon. Gentleman brought out a point which we are bound to pursue. When we were protesting that warrant sales will still take place in houses, albeit with the agreement of the owner, he said that there might be a difference between people living in rural areas and those who live in constituencies such as mine. I have given fair notice to the Solicitor-General that that point, as well as other points, will be pursued in Committee.
A number of points have been made by hon. Members. The Solicitor-General cannot be expected to reply to all of them tonight, although no doubt he will respond. I look forward to the Committee proceedings and the constructive discussion—[Interruption.] I hope that even the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will agree and change the habits of a lifetime.
Despite our reservations, we welcome the Bill. We shall continue to express our reservations and, hopefully, we shall persuade the Solicitor-General and the Government when we debate these matters further.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to a number of the points that have been made in the debate.
First, I say to a number of my hon. Friends that the Opposition are correct in jumping to their feet to ensure that proper commendation is given to hon. Members, such as the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen, (Mr. MacKenzie) who, as a Minister and as a Back Bencher, has pursued this matter with great vigour and is responsible for some reform prior to the introduction of the Bill. That could similarly be said of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey).
The strictures that were placed on the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) were properly imposed. For a long time, he has attempted to suggest that he is the only person who has been bothered about this matter. When we get down to the nitty-gritty, it is unfortunate that he is not here to consider it.
The debate has proceeded on two bases. One has been an interesting debate about the problems of the availability and accessibility to credit in our society. As was made clear on both sides of the House, that can give rise to acute social problems. None of us, as constituency Members, can fail to recognise that.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) appreciated that that did not fall within the ambit of the Bill. Nor, indeed, can we sensibly hope to contain it within a purely Scottish measure. For every one of those who obtain credit, whether it is by plastic money or other means, there are those who in their Sunday newspapers can send off, readily and easily, to mail order firms south of the border. If the matter of credit—which has clearly


raised some concern in the debate—is to be pursued, the argument should be addressed on a United Kingdom basis.
Some consideration has been given to whether the Bill is balanced—whether it now gives greater advantage to the creditor as opposed to the debtor, or vice versa. I would argue, have argued and shall continue to argue that there is a balance—that there is an improvement in the procedures from which both sides benefit. It may be said that earnings arrestment procedures are easier for the creditor, who only needs to seek that order once. At the same time, as I pointed out in opening the debate, under the present arrangements, it may be that the whole of the earnings of the debtor would be taken up. That cannot happen now. Furthermore, as to poindings and warrant sales, the debtor is given an opportunity, for the first time, to go to the court and say, "To continue with this poinding, to continue with this warrant sale, is unduly harsh and it ought to be brought to an end." That is a humane and sensible manner in which to approach these problems in the future.
The connecting point between the broader argument about credit and particular provisions of the Bill is debt counselling. There cannot be any dispute that the sooner people understand the problems that they are accumulating for themselves in taking on board too much debt, the better. If it is through the offices of the citizens advice bureau or the Scottish Consumer Council that such schemes are to be set up, they are to be welcomed and encouraged.
Going beyond that into the more detailed provisions of what might be included, I am bound to say to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) that I am not entirely clear what the position of the official Opposition is with regard to warrant sales.
In the report of the Scottish Law Commission, at page 38, the commission, fully and in some detail, set out the concept of the debt arbitration service which was developed by the Scottish council of the Labour party, among others. At the bottom of page 38, commenting on the scheme, it says:
It would appear that poindings and warrant sales would not be permitted, though this is not entirely clear.
That comment by the Scottish Law Commission, which was made some time ago, would now seem to be an accurate reflection of the exact position. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends for the welcome that they have given in the main to the changes that we are introducing.
In particular, the hon. Gentleman criticised the Government for their failure to introduce, as the Scottish Law Commission suggested, a debt arrangement scheme. I think that he will be aware from the consultation that, while some were in favour of it, other interested groups and bodies are nothing like as enthusiastic as he might be or as the noble Lord Morton of Shuna appeared to be in the other place. I suspect that we shall consider the matter in detail in Committee, but it is not a provision to be overstated. First, the Law Commission, and the amendment tabled in the other place, suggested that such a scheme would have to be voluntary. It is interesting that the noble Lord Morton of Shuna concentrated on the debt situation of someone who was earning rather than seeing such a scheme as an opportunity for debt enforcement or debt arrangement across the board. Evidence from comparable although not exactly the same schemes south

of the border shows about a 40 per cent. fall out in the first year. The opportunity to provide a satisfactory scheme needs to be examined carefully in Committee.
The hon. Gentleman made several detailed points, one of which was his complaint that debtors would have to apply for time to pay orders. There will obviously be some publicity about this. All the forms will tell the debtor the procedures available and, as I have said, the sheriff clerk will have an interest and will be bound to offer assistance.
The exemptions that are provided in clause 16 in relation to warrant sales was also mentioned. The comments that have been made today have been prompted by the observations which help fully arrived from the Scottish Consumer Council late last night or early this morning. If hon. Members look at that clause, they will find that the Government have already improved upon what was provided by the Scottish Law Commission. It was prepared to exclude only one refrigerator, whereas the Government have been prepared to extend that to "refrigerators" in the plural in the Bill.
A more serious point concerns medical aids or equipment that can reasonably be required for the use of the debtor. I do not find that issue as complicated as the Scottish Consumer Council and hon. Members seem to find it. Having had considerable contact with the Scottish Consumer Council, I am disappointed by its approach. For example, in its letter received by all Members of Parliament it asks whether an elderly person who could walk, but with difficulty, would reasonably require a wheelchair. The image created is that sheriff officers will burst into a house, shove grannies out of their wheelchairs and go out of the door with those wheelchairs. That is a short-circuiting of the procedures, and it is unfair arid untrue.
First, there is the poinding process. Before poinding any goods the sheriff officer must prepare a schedule. If the debtor takes exception to that, he has not one, not two, but three opportunities to object to the sale of a particular item.
Odder still is that the Scottish Consumer Council in its press release went on to say:
no medical item should be able to be sold to pay off debts, if it is used by the debtor or his family.
The qualifications in the Bill—
reasonably required for the use of the debtor or any member of his household"—
is simply a variation on exactly the same theme. Unlike the Scottish Consumer Council, I do not consider that to be a major flaw in the Bill.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister seems to be missing the point that the Scottish Consumer Council was making, and he is also selective in his points. He disagrees with some and accepts others, but does not give the council much credibility on those points where it seems to disagree with him. The council's point is that a sheriff officer, or a person whom he sends, will not necessarily be qualified on medical matters and will not be in a position to decide whether somebody's bath chair, crutches or other piece of medical equipment is not required by him.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I understand that. Let us take the ludicrous example of a sheriff officer deciding that granny's wheelchair is not reasonably required by her. In those circumstances there is the opportunity to go to the court and say that that item should not be poinded either on that basis or because to do so would be unduly harsh.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) was, I understand, at one time a pharmacist. Someone like him might have a considerable quantity of medical supplies in a cupboard which were not being used by the family. It would be absurd that they should be excluded from the possibility of being poinded. The test being applied here relates not just to medical aids and equipment, but to books and tools of trade.

Mr. Hirst: Has my hon. and learned Friend any observation to make on the third point in the Scottish Consumer Council's letter about Crown preference in the case of rates and taxes? Is it reasonable that Crown preference should be perpetuated and that time to pay or instalment orders for arrears of rates and taxes should not properly be extended in this case?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I shall come to that. The right hon. Member for Govan raised the same point.
Hon. Members have said that the figure of £500 is too low. I do not accept that, but, as is set out in the clause, that figure can be adjusted by the Lord Advocate in regulations.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) for being the only Member to mention the abolition of civil imprisonment. I am surprised that the extent of the abolition of civil imprisonment has not been more widely welcomed. If there is something medieval or anachronistic in the existing law, it is the continuation of that. It is highly desirable that it should be abolished. The courts would then have the opportunity to imprison only for deliberate failure to pay maintenance or a fine imposed for contempt of court in civil proceedings—a much more limited set of circumstances.
The right hon. Member for Govan was the first to ask why the time-to-pay arrangements are not applied to certain tax debts, and that matter has now been raised again. As the right hon. Gentleman may be aware, during the Bill's passage in the other place it was made clear that one of the differences is that in these circumstances most rates or tax debtors have a continuing liability to pay, so time-to-pay arrangements, say, for one month's PAYE or VAT, would quickly become mixed up with subsequent payments and arrears could mount. In other cases, the tax debtor is merely acting as a collecting agent for the revenue departments and has no entitlement to the money that he has failed to pass on to them. Indeed, as I recollect, and as the right hon. Gentleman reminded me, he participated in the work of the Committee on the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill and indicated then that he accepted that there was something of a distinction. Talking about value added tax and PAYE, he said:
It is a different kind of debt, because the debt it collected on the part of the debtor for the Government, and deductions for PAYE have been made from employees' wages, and must be paid over to the Inland Revenue. Similarly, VAT is passed on".—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 18 June 1985; c. 86.]
So, while there might be arguments about some types of tax, there is, generally speaking, a distinction which the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate individually, has recognised. In those circumstances, in my view that the distinction should be maintained, for the same reason.
Finally, considerable time to pay is already built into rates and taxes collection and the recovery system.

Instalment arrangements are available for the payment of rates and a delay of many months can arise between tax default and summary warrant procedures. However, again I anticipate, having followed the proceedings in another place, that this is likely to be a matter that the right hon. Gentleman will want to explore further in Committee.
I will deal very briefly with a matter that was raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) relating to the ring of dealers and the way that the value of items, even in an auction room, might be depressed by such a ring. We need to understand the details of this scheme. As part of the poinding procedure there is a requirement upon the sheriff officer to value those goods. In terms of clause 20(4), he has to value the poinded goods. The test is that it must be
according to the price which they would be likely to fetch if sold on the open market",
but there is a further provision:
unless he considers that the articles are such that a valuation by a professional valuer or other suitably skilled person is advisable, in which case he may arrange for such a valuation.
Therefore, I want to make it clear that, because the goods are taken to the sale room, it does not mean that they are simply knocked down at a price which a ring of dealers has agreed should be paid. If the goods did not meet the appraised value, they would not be knocked down.

Dr. Godman: Is it not the case that in auctions the autioneer, or the person giving the valuation, offers an anticipated price, which is what he offers to a would-be seller? It may be the same here. That is why he may not be able to give any kind of guarantee. He simply says that it is likely that the goods will raise a certain amount of money. However, we know that when the dealers get together the goods often do not get anywhere near the anticipated price.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As I have been trying to indicate, if that happens the goods will not be knocked down at that price. Obviously, I cannot say whether in every case the sheriff officer accurately appraises the open market value of goods, but that is what we would be requiring of him as a test should the Bill become law.
I am very grateful to hon. Members generally, and particularly to my hon. Friends, who have seen the importance of ensuring that we do not have warrant sales in their present form. As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) pointed out, time and again this has been held up as being a matter in which we have shown inhumanity and an unfair attitude by allowing warrant sales to continue in their present form. That is not the case. We are going to bring about a substantial change. Even if there are those who would like to see warrant sales disappear altogether, the changes that we are introducing are very worth while. There are undoubtedly complicated matters still to be discussed in Committee, and I welcome the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) regarding a place on the Committee. I think it is not unrelated to the fact that he expects the Criminal Justice Bill, which follows it, might be somewhat longer. Nevertheless, he will be very welcome on the Committee.
The provisions of the Bill are humane and sensible. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — DEBTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Debtors (Scotland) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown under that Act;
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Maude.]

Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 4

APPOINTMENTS OF ACTING COMMISSIONERS

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 48, at end insert—
'(a) until the appointment of a new Commissioner or the expiry of the period of twelve months bginning with the date on which the vacancy arose, whichever occurs first; and'.
This is a purely technical amendment which reinstates subparagraph (2)(a) of subsection (3) of clause 4, which was inadvertently omitted in printing, at the foot of page 5 of the Bill.
The three subsections of clause 4 deal in turn with the appointment of an acting Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, an acting Health Service Commissioner for England or for Wales, and an acting HSC for Scotland.
Hon. Members will see that these subsections are framed in virtually identical terms and the wording, of the reinstated sub-paragraph (2)(a) is identical with the wording of the sub-paragraphs (2)(a) in subsections (1) and (2).
The amendment raises no issues of substance and I commend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Luce: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I hope that the House will agree that through the various stages of this Bill we have had some very good discussions and debates, not only about the purpose of the Bill but about the value of the parliamentary commissioner, the work that he does and the very effective liaison that he has with the House, and the excellent work that is done by the Select Committee which deals with the affairs of the parliamentary commissioner under the chairmanship of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck).

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I noted what my right hon. Friend had to say about the importance of the work of the commissioner and I am wondering if he intends to say a word about the way in which we might be able to publicise the excellent work that he does. This is clearly something which should be drawn more to the attention of the public. If they were aware of precisely what the commissioner does and the excellent work that he undertakes I am sure that many members of the public would contact him, to their considerable benefit.

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend and other hon. Members said in Committee that it might be valuable to ensure that there is greater knowledge not only about the existence of the parliamentary commissioner and his task as Health Service Commissioner, but about his powers. As we discovered in Committee, there is a misunderstanding


about the range and extent of the powers of the parliamentary commissioner, particularly in his capacity as Health Service Commissioner. I have certainly taken this on board and will draw it to the attention of the parliamentary commissioner and we shall see whether more can be done to get across the message to citizens of the country who can benefit from the existence of a parliamentary commissioner. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
As the House knows, the main purpose of this Bill is found in clause 1 and its associated schedule. These extend the powers of the parliamentary commissioner to investigate the listed quangos and provide for the addition of further bodies in the future. In addition, the Bill provides an opportunity to bring forward procedural changes to ensure the continuance in an interregnum of the work of both the parliamentary commissioner and the Health Service Commissioner. It also introduces some minor improvements in procedures for handling complaints to the Health Service Commissioner.
We had a very valuable debate in Committee, which provided an opportunity for a useful exchange of views on the powers to conduct investigations of both the parliamentary and the Health Service Commissioners. It might be appropriate now to refer to a particular amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). He suggested in his amendment that there should be scope for an exchange of information between the PCA and the Health Service Commissioner. I undertook to consider whether I could introduce a new clause on Report to safeguard the position if, at some stage in the future, those offices were not held by the same person, as they are at present. I undertook to come back to the House on that.
I have written to the hon. Gentleman but I should like to take this chance to explain to the House. There was some delay in being able to come forward with an amendment due to various technical and drafting problems. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that those matters will be overcome shortly and that they will be dealt with during consideration of the Bill in another place. There is no lack of will on my part to ensure that the objective behind the hon. Gentleman's amendment is achieved.
One of the noticeable things about the Second Reading and Committee was the widespread support, which is reflected in the country, for the work of the parliamentary commissioner and his staff. It is interesting that it is exactly 20 years since the Act was passed which established the first ombudsman in this country, and his work, particularly as a parliamentary commissioner, is well known. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) pointed out, it may be less well known in terms of the Health Service. The commissioner and the House work closely and effectively together in the interests of the adequate protection of the citizen against maladministration. That outlet for complaints against maladministration works well.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I want to follow up a point made by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). I share his view that the parliamentary commissioner does a marvellous job. However, he asked the Minister about ways of letting

people know that the parliamentary commissioner is there. That would bring him more and more work. If the work is there it should be dealt with. However, my main point in Committee was that if work is going to pile up in that Department, the manpower in the Department needs to be examined. I hoped that the Minister would say something about that, bearing in mind what I and other hon. Members said in Committee.

Mr. Luce: I know of the hon. Gentleman's close interest in this since he serves on the Select Committee and follows the issues fully. I am happy to take this chance to reiterate what I said in Committee in answer to his probings. It is our objective to ensure that the parliamentary commissioner has adequate resources and staffing to do his job. As the hon. Gentleman may know, there has been a staff review of the work of the parliamentary commissioner and that can be taken into account when he considers whether he requires more staff.
I understand that it is difficult to establish what extra work load will flow from the passing of the Bill. However, I have heard an estimate of about an extra 15 per cent. It is impossible to establish that at present. Only experience will tell. We have added into the Bill about 50 quangos. Most of them have a good record in terms of their relationship with the public so there is no knowing what the extra work load will be. All I can say is that I can assure the House that adequate resources will be made available to the parliamentary commissioner to enable him to do his job.
I wish every Bill could go through the House with such an atmosphere of friendliness, and in this time span. It has been a constructive debate and with that in mind I warmly commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Bill commands considerable support in the House and there is no reason why it should he inordinately delayed. As the Minister said, the Committee stage was good natured and constructive. Indeed, there has been no organised lobby against the Bill. Since the Bill's intended victims are inefficient administrators, by definition one would not expect an organised lobby against the main thrust of the Bill.
Those of us who have reservations have them about matters of detail and certainly not about matters of principle. Almost all the issues raised in Committee related to the scope of the Bill, and the most often raised objection was that the Bill did not go far enough in a specific area. The Minister did his best to deal with our anxieties, and he did so with some effect.
I shall deal first with the issues relating to the parliamentary commissioner. The main thrust of the Government's argument, as I understand it, is that they wish to separate those bodies which have a primarily commercial or contractual nature to them. They wish to place those outside the commissioner's orbit and to place other bodies as recommended by the Select Committee inside the commissioner's orbit. As we said on Second Reading, that was not the retiring ombudsman's view and I still remain unconvinced that it is wholly necessary to place bodies whose main function is commercial or contractual outside the ombudsman system. That does not mean that I object to the inclusions we are discussing.
I think that the Government's distinction has got them into some difficulties at the margins where the reason for


including some bodies and excluding others is a very fine one. We explored that at some length in Committee and I do not wish to retrawl the areas we explored then except for one example—the Civil Aviation Authority. I am using that as an example of a type of body. That is not the only body of its nature, but perhaps it is the best example.
The ombudsman's reports refer specifically to complaints about low-flying aircraft and the difficulties that he has in dealing with matters of that sort. I accept that some of the duties of the Civil Aviation Authority are, as the Minister will say, commercial or contractual in nature, but that authority also has a duty to regulate the flight patterns of civil aircraft and to make sure that they are keeping to the routes—

Mr. Pawsey: rose—

Mr. Brown: Let me finish my point and then I shall give way.
It has to make sure that they are keeping to the routes that they are supposed to keep to. It ought to be possible for the ombudsman to investigate matters that are purely administrative in nature, even taking account of the Government's criteria and excluding everything to do with commercial or contractual considerations. There should still be scope for the ombudsman to intervene in a case of maladministration where there is specifically a question about how the authority has handled the complaint of someone who was, for example, arguing that aircraft were flying too low over his or her home.

Mr. Pawsey: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, I remind the House that we must stick to what is in the Bill. It would not be in order to go into detail about what is not in the Bill. That is a matter for earlier stages.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank the hon. Member for giving way in such a courteous fashion. I noted carefully the point you made, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about what is in the Bill rather than what has been left out. However, the hon. Gentleman touched on a matter that affects my constituency closely—the incidence of low-flying aircraft. I know from bitter experience how difficult it is to register complaints on that particularly important matter. The hon. Gentleman has a reputation for being fastidious about the geography of the United Kingdom and must be well aware that Rugby and Kenilworth are separated by two envelopes, one covering the west midlands flat area, the other covering the area of the American base around Oxford. Therefore, aircraft tend to be funnelled into a fairly narrow area over my constituency, to the grave disadvantage of my constituents. I well understand the excellent point made by the hon. Gentleman. Speaking from bitter experience, I hope to discuss this aspect with my right hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that the Gentleman will say more about what might be in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member does that, I hope that he will recall that I said that, on Third Reading. hon. Members must stick to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Brown: You have touched on the main thrust of my argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The ability of the ombudsman to investigate matters of a purely administrative import is much wider than is generally believed. This point was brought home to us in Committee

by the Minister's assurances. The Civil Aviation Authority's role in dealing with complaints of this nature, even at the administrative level, is probably still outside the scope of the ombudsman's function — but only just outside. However, administrative aspects of clinical judgment and family practitioner committees fall just inside the ombudsman's sphere of activity and are thus included within the scope of the Bill. This fine dividing line does a disservice to the Bill, the main thrust of which I wholly support. I hope that the Minister will be able to address my point about the purely administrative role.
I welcome the Minister's assurance that he will bring forward an amendment to deal with a small anomaly which concerns whether information held by the ombudsman acting in one capacity can be imparted to the ombudsman acting in another capacity. It may seem ridiculous to outsiders that we should be discussing whether a man can talk to himself. Different offices may not always be held by the same person. In any case, these matters are sometimes raised not by the holder of the office in chief but by subordinates.
A number of Committee Members were a little disturbed that in some matters the ombudsman seems to be taking an over-cautious view of his role, functions and powers. It seemed a shame that the Government should have to legislate to ensure that Members of Parliament can receive copies of reports. The risk to the ombudsman of a defamation suit seems to be fairly remote, especially as there would probably be a need to prove malice, and how one would do that is beyond me.
Most of the debate was on the activities not of the parliamentary ombudsman but on the Health Service ombudsman. The reason is simply stated. Many hon. Members feel that there is not an easily discerned or accessible way of dealing with complaints against hospitals or general practitioners. Some of us look to the ombudsman system to remedy the lack of a one-stop agency to deal with complaints. There is a division of opinion among those who follow these matters as to whether clinical judgments should be included within the ombudsman's remit and whether the contractual relationship between general practitioners and the family practitioner committees should be included.
The Minister made a number of very helpful comments in Committee. He gave an assurance that it was for the ombudsman himself to determine the extent of administrative matters with which he had to deal. That means that if there was an administrative aspect to a complaint which also had a clinical aspect, it was open to the ombudsman—indeed, the House would encourage him—to make sure that he did investigate rather than was unduly deferential to the medical profession. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck), stated succinctly in Committee:
From time to time the medical profession pushes its luck." — [Official Report, Standing Committee E, 19 February 1987; c. 23.]
That sentiment was widespread. I hope that this debate and the debate in Committee fill the Health Service ombudsman with renewed vigour to boldly go where perhaps he should have been going before.
The other matters we touched on in Committee—the right to investigate personnel matters and to deal with matters that relate to contract—could have been dealt with but were not, and I shall make no further reference


to them. There was widespread support for the ombudsman in his office. Any criticism—it was muted if there was any at all — was in the desire to see the ombudsman exert himself to make full use of his powers rather than take a more narrow and confined approach to his duties, specifically in his Health Service role.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) mentioned resourcing. It would be wrong to extend the areas into which we expect the ombudsman to delve and then not to give him the resources to do so. There are difficulties in calculating precisely the extra resourcing that the ombudsman will require to explore what is asked of him. Nevertheless, I am grateful that the Minister has given an assurance that resourcing will follow demand and that the Select Committee will not be returning to complaints that the ombudsman could have done more if the resourcing was available.
I wish the Bill well and a speedy passage in the other place.

Mr. Ian Gow: The attention of Standing Committee E was drawn to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister has special responsibility for preventing misuse of language and for trying to ensure much better standards in the use of English in Government Departments. It is therefore a strange irony that we note in schedule 2 one of the most unattractive new features of legislation. The heading of Schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 is
Departments and Authorities Subject to Investigation".
Schedule 2 of the Bill now before the House is
Departments Etc. Subject to Investigation.
The Bill's draftsman, apparently with the approval of my right hon. Friend the Minister in charge of decent English, has not even used the word "etcetera", which hon. Members may think is an unattractive word. But we now have the abbreviation "etc.", as though my right hon. Friend the Minister is giving his official seal of approval to a misuse of the English language. I hope that we shall cease to use that word in parliamentary documents, notably Bills. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Sir P. Holland) is nodding in approval. I must say in fairness to my right hon. Friend the Minister that he has not sinned quite as greatly as some of his right hon. and hon. Friends who have introduced legislations with the word "etc." in the long title.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Oh, no.

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, from whom we do not hear sufficiently frequently in our debates, expresses disbelief that the Government, of whom my right hon. Friend the Minister is such a distinguished adornment, could possibly have introduced a Bill containing those words. I assure the House that the Government, who are almost blameless in every other matter, have not been blameless in the misuse of language.
There is another extraordinary feature. My right hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that it is almost 20 years to the day since the 1967 Act received Royal Assent, so we can find a commentary on what we have done. Under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, 44 departments and authorities were subject to investigation. As a result

of the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister that number is to be increased to 105. I do not know whether we should congratulate or rebuke ourselves on the fact that in 20 years the number of bodies subject to investigation has risen so dramatically. I agree with what the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said. It is likely that, because of this dramatic extension in the number of departments and bodies subject to investigation, there will be an increased workload. I very much welcome the comment by my right hon. Friend the Minister in moving the third reading that, if we need, as I am almost certain we shall, additional staff and staff of a high quality in the office of the parliamentary commissioners, they will be made available.
Despite my friendly rebuke of my right hon. Friend the Minister on the subject of the English language, I congratulate him on the way in which he has introduced the Bill and piloted it so successfully in committee. I look forward to the Bill being on the statute book at the earliest possible time.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his helpful comments in responding to my intervention. He will understand, however, that I deeply regret that the Bill contains no provision to give greater prominence to the work of the Select Committee and of the ombudsman. I rest assured, however, that he will make representations to the parliamentary commissioner and I hope that, as a result, we shall be given something firm and definite.
My right hon. Friend the Minister will understand that publicity costs money. Clearly, he will need to ensure that there are adequate funds to promote the parliamentary commissioner's work. Several times during our discussions the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) stressed the importance of making sure that reasonable funds were made available to the parliamentary commissioner. To derive the maximum benefit from the commissioner's work, there must be appropriate funding.
I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister to the notes on page 10 of the Bill which refer to various bodies. Paragraph 6 states:
The references to the Management and Personnel Office and the Treasury do not include the Cabinet Office".
That is an extraordinary omission. I am puzzled about why the Cabinet Office has been so carefully left outside the Bill's terms. That is highly inappropriate. I do not understand why the people working in the Cabinet Office are operating and will operate outside the commissioner's umbrella. There is a strong argument to include them within the Bill's provisions. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will advise me on this important matter.
Clause 2 refers to the removal of a commissioner on the ground that he is "incapable for medical reasons". Should the House assume that those medical reasons include mental illness? The commissioner's job is particularly stressful and he operates under substantial constraints. Clearly, there is a substantial risk to his mental health. I should like, therefore, to be assured that "medical reasons" includes mental illness.
Clause 2 states:
Her Majesty may declare the office of Commissioner to have been vacated if satisfied that the person appointed to be the Commissioner is incapable for medical reasons".


Who will give Her Majesty appropriate advice on the parliamentary commissioner's mental and physical condition? This is a particularly fine point. The commissioner must not be subject to duress. Anyone examining the commissioner's physical or mental condition must act in a truly impartial way. There should be no risk of anyone seeking to remove the commissioner from his office on grounds other than illness or ill health, whether mental or physical. A little advice from my right hon. Friend the Minister would be helpful.
If the commissioner is removed from office for medical reasons, what about his pension provision? Can we take it that when the commissioner leaves his job an adequate and reasonable pension provision will be made for him and his dependants? Those who have been hon. Members for a considerable period will be aware that we have argued about an adequate and proper pension provision for hon. Members. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the commissioner enjoys safeguards similar to those enjoyed by hon. Members. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will comment on those matters. Schedule 1 is headed:
Schedule Substituted for Schedule 2 to the 1967 Act.
I have sought in vain to find some common denominator in the interesting list under proposed schedule 2. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling in his accustomed place—

Mr. Haynes: Gedling? Do not insult Nottinghamshire.

Mr. Pawsey: I am tempted to say that it is impossible to insult Nottingham, but I shall not. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Sir P. Holland) in his accustomed place and posture. He has achieved a substantial reputation as a quango hunter. I wonder what emotions passed through his breast when he studied this substantial list and when he realised that many were missing from the list.
As my eye travelled down the schedule I saw that it included the Building Societies Commission and the Charity Commission. It also includes the Crafts Council. I have tried in vain to discover the connection between the Crafts Council and the Building Societies Commission. The data protection registrar is also listed and a little further down the list the Forestry Commission appears. I believe that there may be a case to argue for the insertion on the list of the Forestry Commission. It employs a substantial number of people. At times those people may be exposed to the risk of injury, bearing in mind the nature of their work and because so much of it is carried on outside. Obviously those employees must have a form of redress in the event of the maladministration of their compensation claims.
I have studied the list and I wish to know the basis of it. What are the criteria for membership of the list? Who requested admission to the list? Why were there such requests? How many people will be affected by the list? What was the test of admission to the list? I ask a direct question of the hon. Member for Ashfield: why was the BBC omitted from the list?
During the course of his excellent remarks my right hon. Friend said that he estimated—that was the word he used—that, as a result of the schedule, the workload may increase by as much as 15 per cent. Those of us who serve upon the Committee of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and are assiduous attenders, will be aware that the workload of the

Committee has grown. I wonder—indeed, the hon. Member for Ashfield shares my wonder—whether the 15 per cent. additional workload may turn out to be a gross under-estimate.
I believe that adequate provision must he made not just for more staff, as has been pleaded by the hon. Member for Ashfield over and over again, but for additional premises and further equipment. We should consider installing word processors or computers. We must ensure that the commissioner is adequately serviced not just by personnel, but with the appropriate equipment that will enable the personnel to discharge adequately their work.
I notice that the office of the Director General of Gas Supply is included in the list and that is a welcome inclusion. From time to time I have made reference to that office and I believe that its inclusion will be of substantial benefit. Further down the list I notice the Horserace Betting Levy Board and I find that a rather surprising inclusion.

Mr. Frank Dobson: That's a turn up for the book.

Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his witty intervention. It was an entirely appropriate remark. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can find something illuminating to say about the Corporation of the Trinity House of Dartford Strond and the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses.

Mr. Dobson: Deptford Strond.

Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged for that gentle correction. I do not understand why those two bodies are included in the list. I can appreciate the reason for the inclusion of the National Debt Office and the Trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, but again it would be helpful to have some knowledge of the number of employees involved in those various bodies.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Bearing in mind the inherent dangers in creating too many links between the various bodies listed in the schedule, has my hon. Friend noted No. 21 and 22 on the list? He will discover that the Commission for Racial Equality, which deals with matters relating to discrimination based on colour, is followed by the Red Deer Commission, which I believe is basically involved in calculating the number of red deer that may be culled at any one time. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that some of the connections may lead to dangerous links.

Mr. Pawsey: There is another link to which my hon. Friend may have drawn attention — that between the Forestry Commission and the Red Deer Commission. It would appear that one commission will offset the other because I understand that red deer are partial to young trees. It may be that that could be investigated by another body on the list, the Medical Research Council. I certainly do not know of any red trees — most of the trees are green in my constituency.
The Science and Engineering Research Council is on the list and as a former engineer I am delighted about its inclusion. I certainly believe that that admirable council should be assisted in every way possible. With regard to residuary bodies I wonder whether they have inadvertently slipped into the list by error. I cannot understand why they should be included, but perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to tell me.

Mr. Rowe: Residuary body could be a description of this place.

Mr. Pawsey: That may be true.
Two thirds of the way down the second half of the list the English Tourist Board, Scottish Tourist Board and Wales Tourist Board are included. I favour tourism and I believe that it should be promoted to the maximum as it assists our balance of trade. It also ensures that people from other countries have a true understanding of what occurs in Britain. I am sure that if there were any tourists here today they would be especially interested in the Bill. They would be most anxious to take back to their Parliaments knowledge of what has taken place in this Parliament tonight.
I mentioned the inclusion of the Science and Engineering Research Council and if I may continue my reflections on the list for a moment longer, I also notice the inclusion of another engineering body — the Engineering Industry Training Board. I am extremely happy about that.
With regard to the notes on page 10 I should like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to No. 4, which states:
The reference to the Lord Chancellor's Department includes the department of the Accountant General of the Supreme Court and the department of the Public Trustee (whether or not either office is held by the Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor).
I do not understand why it is necessary for that to be defined so closely in that specific note. I am certain that there must be an admirable reason for it, but it does not readily strike me.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) rightly called for greater powers for the commissioner. One of the frustrations of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is that present powers do not appear to encompass all the cases that could be brought before us. I can recall that when the office of parliamentary commissioner was established it was said that the office may trespass upon the work undertaken by individual Members. It is clear that that has not been the outcome. Indeed, quite the reverse has been so. Members of Parliament, recognising the importance of the office, have been only too happy to recommend cases to the commissioner so that they may be dealt with adequately. I join the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East—not for the first time and I am certain not for the last—in saying that the ombudsman should have additional and greater powers. I look forward to the occasion when another Bill may be brought before the House which gives the ombudsman the powers that hon. Members on both sides of the House consider to be appropriate.
There is so much more in this important Bill to which I could refer. I shall resume my place, however, in the hope that when my right hon. Friend the Minister replies he will touch upon some, if not all, of the issues which I have raised.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: First, I wish to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office for inadvertently missing his opening remarks in this debate, which crept up on me somewhat surreptitiously. In my experience, it is rare that complaints

from my constituents require the ombudsman's intervention. That shows that in our public service there is still a high standard of administration. It is appropriate that we should pay tribute to the large band of civil servants and administrators in the Health Service who run their affairs in ways which lead to such comparatively few complaints.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) observed that the number of bodies to be investigated by the ombudsman has increased substantially. That is partly a consequence of a desire to devolve some of the responsibilities from central Government to subordinate bodies, and to that extent it is a healthy development. If I had a criticism to make of the Government, it is that there are moments when I fear that there is a slight impatience on their part which leads to a desire to take things into their own hands rather more than is sometimes wise. The devolution of power to many bodies, as set out in schedule 2, is a step in the right direction. There are bodies included in the list that are capable of acting unjustly and doing damage to individual citizens, whether by the grant of financial support or the refusal of it, or whatever, which means that we are right to have them open to inspection.
My disappointment with the ombudsman system is that in the collation and presentation of reports it is still arguable that not enough attention is paid to rules which, in their observation, are oppressive. The ombudsman is now employed to pass a judgment on behaviour which fits the rules even if the rules are oppressive. If there is a collection of cases caused by a rule which in itself is oppressive, it would be valuable if the ombudsman's reports drew rather more explicit attention to it. In my constituency, a business man is being oppressed in a way that would be unsusceptible to the intervention of the ombudsman. The authorities are behaving scrupulously, according to the rules, but the rules make it impossible for my constituent to receive justice. Where such cases cluster in the ombudsman's files, they should be brought out and exposed clearly to public view. I think sometimes that in the selection of cases for detailed report the ombudsman does not always do what he might. I should like my right hon. Friend to take note of that.

Mr. Luce: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply briefly to an excellent debate.
I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for the tribute that he paid to the standards of the Civil Service. In carrying out my duties as Minister with responsibility for the Civil Service, I have nothing but praise for the work that is done by civil servants. When we consider the number of complaints, the number of civil servants in post and the wide range of duties that they undertake, it is clear that they do an outstanding and remarkable job. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Sir P. Holland) is in his place and listening to the debate. He is precluded from contributing to it because he played an important role, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Bill. As the Bill is principally about the extension of the powers of the ombudsman to deal with quangos, it is right that I should pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the remarkable work that he has done in reducing their number. It is interesting to note that over


the past eight years there has been a reduction of 509 quangos, and much of that reduction is due to my hon. Friend's work in drawing attention to the number of unnecessary quangos there were in existence. I am sure that he welcomes the fact that about 50 of them that come within the terms of the Bill have been included in schedule 2.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) rightly said that there are a number of grey areas when it comes to considering which bodies should or should not be included in the Bill. This issue was drawn to my attention also by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who is a splendid watchdog of the work of the ombudsman. My hon. Friend made a probing and detailed speech in which he drew attention to the types of organisation that should or should not be included in the schedule.
It is worth reminding the House of the criteria for inclusion. First, bodies should be subject to some degree of ministerial accountability to Parliament because they are dependent for their financing and continuing existence on Government policy. Secondly, this should apply only to organisations with executive or administrative functions that directly affect individual citizens or groups of citizens. Clause 1 provides more detail for the criteria that should he provided. It is important to keep one's eye on the criteria that we are using to judge whether a certain body should be included or excluded.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East raised again the question of the Civil Aviation Authority. I understand the argument that he put forward, but we have to judge it against the criteria. The Bill makes it plain that nationalised industries are to he excluded from the jurisdiction of the ombudsman, for the reasons that I have given on many previous occasions. That is the principal reason why the Civil Aviation Authority is outside it, quite apart from the fact that many of its activities are subject to the Council on Tribunals which would in itself exclude it from inclusion in the Bill.
There is considerable consistency in the criteria which we apply, but there will always be a grey area. That is why it is important to remind the House that there is provision in the Bill to ensure that an Order in Council could be introduced, subject to negative resolution, at any time

which would enable us to withdraw bodies from the schedule or to include new bodies. So there is considerable flexibility in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby arid Kenilworth drew attention to several points, most of which I shall answer by letter. It might be as well to get one point on record. He referred to the fact that the Cabinet office is excluded from the provisions of the Bill and from the jurisdiction of the ombudsman. That is provided for in section 8 of the 1967 Act, which precludes the ombudsman from investigating the proceedings of the Cabinet or seeing Cabinet papers. It would be inappropriate to schedule a Department which deals primarily with ministerial consultations and Cabinet proceedings; in other words, the Cabinet office does not come strictly within the criteria of the jurisdiction of the ombudsman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) gave me notice that he could not be here for my reply to the debate. I accept his strictures about the standards of plain English in our legislation. There could not be a more suitable person than my hon. Friend to be a watchdog of plain English, as he expresses himself with the utmost clarity. The House would do well to listen to his strictures, as I do. Certainly I believe, wearing my Civil Service Minister hat, that it is right to aim for legislation which is comprehensible. I think the House as a whole will accept the view that much of our legislation is not adequately comprehensible to the public.
I have sought to answer some of the points that were raised. We have had a fair crack of the whip in the amount of time given to this important debate on the powers of the ombudsman. There is widespread admiration for what he does. Questions about the basis upon which he might have to be retired are not an indication or reflection of anxiety about the health of the present ombudsman but relate simply to the circumstances in which it might be necessary to ask an ombudsman to retire on medical grounds or on grounds of mental health.
I warmly commend the Bill to the House. I hope that its remaining stages in another place will take place quickly and that the extended power for the ombudsman will be in practice before too long.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Public Order (Northern Ireland)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
That the draft Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.
This order deals with a number of aspects of public order in Northern Ireland—processions and meetings, stirring up hatred or arousing fear, miscellaneous public order offences, and the repeal of the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954. The proposal for a draft order was published on 1 December for consultation. We received a substantial number of representations and as a result amendments have been made in this draft order which was laid in this House on 19 February. The order amends and consolidates public order legislation in Northern Ireland in the light of recommendations by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and of developments in Northern Ireland since the law was last amended 15 years ago. In doing so, it takes account wherever possible of the changes made in public order legislation in Great Britain by the Public Order Act 1986.
The Government believe it right that the principles underlying public order legislation should be uniform throughout the United Kingdom, although local circumstances in Northern Ireland may require detailed provisions that are different. The draft order is designed to reflect this balance, and many of its key provisions reflect advice on public order matters given by the RUC.
In the last few weeks it has become clear that a campaign of serious misrepresentation has been launched against this order, alleging every form of wickedness about it: that it is some sinister plot to curb and prevent traditional marches, or that it is all the result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Both these allegations are quite untrue, but those who make them are clearly seeking to excite Loyalist emotions, and I would therefore like to make the position quite clear.
This order represents no change in public policy toward marches, processions, and open air meetings. I respect the tradition of marching in Northern Ireland, and believe that the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to see marches conducted in a responsible way; and the figures show that that is in fact what normally happens. Last year there were 2,200 marches. I shall repeat that figure for the House because I believe that many people, who see just some marches, do not appreciate how many take place, mainly during the marching season. Last year there were 2,200, of which some 2,100 raised no public order problems of any gravity. In fewer than 70 was there even any commotion or disorder, although some produced quite serious disorder. In only 10 was any rerouting requested and in one single case, last Easter Monday at Portadown, the Chief Constable requested me to ban the march because he believed that the route chosen was unacceptably provocative. Those are the facts, and they show quite clearly that in the vast majority of marches there are no problems whatsoever.
However, all marches, including customary marches, make demands on police manpower and organisation. I believe all responsible people will accept the fairness of

giving reasonable notice to the Royal Ulster Constabulary in time for it to notify officers if they will be required for extra duty. In no sense is this having to ask permission but rather giving fair notice so that the necessary police arrangements can be made and any queries raised, should there be in any case difficulty over the route chosen.
I hope that there is nobody in the House who does not accept that that is manifestly a reasonable proposition. Those who do not accept that should do the RUC and the Chief Constable the courtesy of reading any of his annual reports since 1981 in which he draws attention to the heavy burden and load placed on the RUC, not just by one section of the community but by both sides with their various traditional marches and activities.
In respect of the incitement provisions in the order, the misleading statements that have been made about stirring up hatred or arousing fear and the suggestion that the provisions are different from anything seen before, these provisions effectively reflect the provisions of the Public Order Act 1986 for England and Wales. Before that measure was enacted, the House will recall that when I originally published the proposal for a draft order I announced that we had not at that time had the opportunity to take account of the provisions in the Public Order Act 1986. I told the House that I would seek to include them in this order, and hon. Members will see that the provisions are included in the draft order.
The order encompasses an additional element about fear and religious belief, both of which reflect the unfortunate circumstances of Northern Ireland. Some hon. Members may think that this is a radical departure, but those things have been in Northern Ireland legislation since 1970. There has been misrepresentation about this order and about the repeal of the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954. There has been gross misrepresentation about the effect of the repeal of this Act. Leaving aside the facts that there has not been a single prosecution under this Act since 1969 and that its repeal will bring the legislation into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, the allegation is made that its repeal would somehow give equal status to the tricolour in Northern Ireland. I say clearly to the House that that is quite untrue.
The repeal of the Act will not affect the fact that the Union flag is the official flag of the United Kingdom and will continue to be the flag that is flown from public buildings on public occasions. There is no question of the Irish tricolour being given any status by the repeal. It will no longer be an offence in itself to interfere with the display of the Union flag on private property—such as might have occurred under the Act—but any such interference would involve the commission of other criminal or civil offences, such as criminal damage, so the peaceful display of the Union flag or any other flag will continue to be protected. The police will also retain their general duty under common law to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent a breach of the peace arising from the provocative display of any flag or emblem.
No hon. Member familiar with Northern Ireland will have any illusion about flags being an emotional issue. It is extremely easy to stir up all sorts of misunderstandings and rumour. This Act will be totally redundant, and its repeal makes no difference whatever to the present position. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will understand that when some people seek to excite their emotions about the matter. Undoubtedly in the past the


Act has been a source of great grievance for some people in Northern Ireland and it has long been felt by many, not least by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, that its repeal was long overdue.
A further criticism is that this Order enormously increases the powers of the police and my powers as Secretary of State. The draft order confers no new powers on the police, though it puts the existing power under common law to impose conditions on open air public meetings on to a statutory basis and redefines the grounds on which certain of their powers may be exercised. The only new power conferred on the Secretary of State is a power to exempt specified classes of processions from the notification requirements of article 3.
This exemption power is relevant to an anxiety that was expressed by the Salvation Army. Part II requires organisers of public processions to give seven days' notice to the police rather than the five days' notice that was previously required under the 1981 order. This requirement for advance notice applies to all public processions except funerals, but there is provision for the Secretary of State to exempt by order other classes or descriptions of processions. This provision could be applied, for example, to the regular Salvation Army processions which obviously contain no risk of public disorder. I mention that point because I know some people criticise our procedures and say that there is no opportunity for views to be taken into account. The House will know that this provision arose specifically as a result of representations by the Salvation Army and others, and we were certainly ready to meet their concerns with the amendment that is included in the draft order.
This order is different in one respect from previous Northern Ireland legislation and from legislation that applies in Great Britain. I refer to the requirement to give notice for processions which are customarily held in a particular area or along a particular route. Earlier I said that part of the purpose for the giving of notice is to give reasonable warning to the RUC, because its officers need reasonable notice to organise the extra duties that may be involved. Such duties may arise whether the march is customary or not. However, we know that in Northern Ireland traditional parades can, unfortunately, become the focus of disorder, although that is not necessarily the intention of the organisers. For that reason we feel that it is necessary to include customary parades in the ambit of the requirement to give notice.
One other concern arose during the consultation. It is about the incitement to hatred and the arousal of fear provisions. This matter was raised by the National Union of Journalists and others, who said that the provisions might interfere with the normal activities of the press in reporting events in Northern Ireland. I can assure the House that this is certainly not the intention, nor is it the effect, of the new provisions.
This matter arose during consideration of the Public Order Bill and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in Standing Committee G, on 22 March 1986 said, as reported in column 860, that the British Guild of Newspaper Proprietors had expressed similar fears about the equivalent provisions of that Bill. As a result, the Bill was amended on Report to include the words,
having regard to all the circumstances".
This provision enables prosecuting authorities and the court to distinguish between legitimate reporting and

comment, on the one hand, arid inflammatory material, on the other. The relevant wording of the Public Order Act is replicated in this draft order.
The House will also note that the draft order maintains the power that the Secretary of State enjoys to ban a procession in consequence of information furnished to him by the Chief Constable or for any other reason. I find it extremely difficult to conceive of any occasion when I would think it possible or appropriate to exercise that power without information and advice from the Chief Constable. At the same time, the House will understand the ultimate responsibility that I bear for order in Northern Ireland, and will understand why it is sensible to retain that ultimate responsibility if for any other reason I thought that it might be desirable to ban a procession. I tell the House bluntly that I find it virtually inconceivable that such power would be excercised without the good advice of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
One criticism is that, by this order, we are seeking to snuff out the traditional rights of protest and assembly that should exist in any civilised democratic society. I make it quite clear that that is in no sense our desire or intention. Incidentally, in one of the pamphlets that I have seen circulating in opposition to the order there is a suggestion that there is a distinction between the time requirement that is shown in the Public Order Act, which is six clear days, and the requirement in this order, which is seven days. I am not responsible for all the draftsmen. They have different ways of saying exactly the same thing.
The requirement to give notice might appear to infringe the opportunity for genuine spontaneous demonstration. The order takes into account circumstances in which a demonstration is genuine and it is simply not practicable for the required notice to be given. A reasonable and practicable provision is included.
A further charge involves the registration of bands. That feature is different in the order. Of course, anybody who knows traditional Northern Ireland marches will know that the number and type of bands differ from those that one might expect in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The registration of bands is not new. It was introduced' into Northern Ireland legislation in 1971. The proposals for registration have never been implemented. I make it absolutely clear that the Government have no intention of doing so at present. At the same time, I recognise and welcome the recent announcement that the Orange order is to introduce a charter for the conduct of bands participating in Orange parades. I am sure that that is a responsible and sensible piece of self-regulation which should be likely to meet the situation.
The truth about the order, unlike the misrepresentations that have been put out about it, is that, in part, it follows a number of the Chief Constable's recommendations about public order. It carries forward the improvements contained in the Public Order Act 1986 for England and Wales, with the modifications that are needed for the special circumstances of Northern Ireland. It involves the development of policies and the guidance and important role played by Sir John Hermon as Chief Constable. In successive annual reports, he has advised of the need to find a more sensible and more orderly way in which the good traditions of marching can be protected


and in which some of the elements that seek to disrupt and abuse such privileges and opportunities can be sensibly dealt with.
Society in Northern Ireland has paid a heavy price for disorganisation, disruption, human conflict and, undoubtedly, the resources that have been involved year after year in trying to bring order into certain areas in which it has been seriously disrupted. The order contains nothing that any responsible person in Northern Ireland need fear.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The order occupies approximately 21 pages. One almost hopes that the debate will not be too lengthy, but how in heaven's name can one get through this matter in a short time? Why it is an order and not a Bill?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman may have heard my opening remarks in which I made it clear that, under the procedure that the House adopts in the system of issuing proposals for a draft order for consultation, the opportunities for formal consultation are clearly established. In seeking to maintain the consistency of Northern Ireland legislation in this field, the Order in Council procedure has been followed. I make no secret of the fact that I should have liked to see the possibility of developing alternative procedures. It is a pity that the House has not addressed that matter.
As long ago as February 1986, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister specifically offered Unionist Members and other hon. Members the opportunity to discuss the procedures under which Northern Ireland legislation is handled in the House. It is a great pity that that opportunity was not taken. It is worth noting that those who make allegations about the order outside the House as though it is the end of civilised life in Northern Ireland as they know it are not prepared to take the opportunity to raise any points arising from it, either inside the House or during the consultation period. The reality is that they are either grossly negligent about the interests of their constituents or are wholly exaggerating their fears. The order consolidates in part what the House discussed at considerable length in relation to the Public Order Act 1986. In certain other respects, it carries forward and clarifies a certain amount of the existing Northern Ireland legislation.
Although I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the length of the order, my illustration of its components will help to clarify it. I make no secret of the fact that—I say this quite straightforwardly to the hon. Gentleman — I should like to see discussions on alternative ways in which Northern Ireland legislation of such significance could be handled in the House.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Secretary of State accept that to make a charge of negligence is only to aggravate a condition? Surely he would wish to withdraw that charge.

Mr. King: I gave the House the opportunity to choose between the alternative conclusions. I leave the hon. Gentleman to make his judgment. I happen to believe in the House. I happen also to believe that we live in a parliamentary democracy in which arguments and disagreements are brought out into the open and issues are discussed. If the issues are about disorder—I do not

often agree with the hon. Gentleman, as he knows—or if they are about how legislation is handled, it is a fair point to make, and the House should consider it. I respect the fact that he raised it.
I say clearly again to all hon. Members and to those who are interested in our proceedings that the order contains nothing that any responsible person in Northern Ireland need fear. Rather, it is to be welcomed by all who wish to see honourable traditions maintained and exercised, free of abuse, intimidation and fear, and who recognise the need to support the RUC and for it to have the necessary and appropriate powers to maintain the peace and to protect the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Peter Archer: In replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) the Secretary of State was very frank. Let me be equally frank. I found much of what the Secretary of State has just said very persuasive. The division across the Dispatch Boxes tonight arises not from what he said; nevertheless, it is of the Government's own making. It is the clearest example for a long time of the unsatisfactory procedure by which we legislate for Northern Ireland. If ever there were legislation that was not appropriate for an unamendable order, it must be the provisions that we are now discussing. The Opposition accept that there is a need for reviewing the public order provisions which exist for Northern Ireland. The differences between us and the Government may fairly be said to be largely matters of judgment—where the balance should be struck between the various interests and the various rights that have to be protected.
But this is an area where balance is all-important, where it is vital to examine the details of how a provision will operate and what its impact will be in various situations. If this had been a Second Reading debate, we might have been able to say, "Let the Bill proceed; we shall discuss our reservations and anxieties in Committee; then, on Third Reading, we shall assess what progress has been made towards a consensus on the controversial issues and whether we can accept the final edition." But that option has been denied to us. We are presented with a sealed package containing a variety of provisions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough said, with little in common, except that they may all be described as relating to public order and we are told to take it or leave it.
Perhaps it was naive of me, in the light of our experience with the Government's business managers—I accept the distinction between the Northern Ireland Office and the Government's business managers—to expect something better, but I really did expect something better. Together with the Minister of State, we have just taken part in the Committee stage of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. It was a refreshing experience. There were genuine discussions; minds actually met; and there was give and take. I doubt whether any hon. Member who took part in the Committee proceedings was not persuaded to a change of mind on some question by the arguments.
We are not wholly happy with the outcome; there are still differences between us. But we enjoyed the experience —a novel one in Northern Ireland matters—of seeking together after truth instead of proceeding to an all-or-nothing vote. I had hoped that the Government would


want to repeat that experience—if not by way of a Bill, as I understand that there are constraints on time, at least by way of a preliminary debate that would permit a test of feelings in the House on some of the controversial issues, before the House was presented with the final draft.
I am sure that I am not betraying any confidence—in fact, I think that the Secretary of State implied it—if I say that that possibility was explored through that mysterious process which we call "the usual channels". However, I suspect that the Government lost interest when they failed to reach an agreement on our procedures which would include the two major Unionist parties. That was the reason which the Secretary of State gave a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough.
But the hon. Members of the two Unionist parties are not the only Members of this House who want to discuss matters relating to Northern Ireland. They are not the only Members of this House who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland. I very much regret that those hon. Members have not thought it right to come to the Chamber and participate in this debate, unsatisfactory though it is, and to express the views of their constituents. But it seems to me that it is even more regrettable that the Government have allowed that fact to preclude any experiment with our procedures. If abstentionism is seen to operate as a veto over any development, there is a clear bonus for abstentionism.
While I am still on the Second Reading part of my speech, may I take up something that the Secretary of State said a moment ago about consultation. There was a very short period for consultation. There are some problems relating to public order, which, as he said, are peculiar to Northern Ireland.
We accept that the provisions cannot be identical with those which apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the very reason why it was necessary to have separate consultations in Northern Ireland. But there are many groups in Northern Ireland who are concerned with the same issues as concern groups in Great Britain. They want to demonstrate about boycotting South African goods, or about particular accident black spots, and they are entitled to express a view as to where the balance should be struck between those rights and the rights that are brought into issue by the special situation in Northern Ireland.
The time allowed after the draft was published to circulate members to convene meetings, to draft submissions and to get them agreed was six weeks, including the Christmas holiday. That is not genuine consultation. It was an invitation to come to the party, addressed to those who could not hope to make the journey before the gates were closed. I hope that the Government will take that on board for the future. Those of us who would like there to be discussion in Northern Ireland of what we would regard as the stuff of politics elsewhere had hoped that those groups would be encouraged to express a view. In many cases their view was excluded.
As for part II of the order, we are concerned about the fact that there is no limit on the categories of procession which may be the subject of conditions imposed by the police or of prohibition by the Secretary of State. There is power to prohibit a school crocodile or a funeral procession. It is only for the purpose of the provisions about the giving of notice that there is any limitation on the categories of procession in question. [Interruption.] If I mistake not, the Secretary of State is a little surprised to

hear that, but if he reads the order he will see that that is what it says. Even those categories are much wider than the categories that are subject to the equivalent provisions in Great Britain. The Public Order Act 1986, to which the Secretary of State referred limits those categories in section 11 to processions intended

"(a) to demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person or body of persons,
(b) to publicise a cause or campaign, or
(c) to mark or commemorate an event."

For the equivalent provisions in this order, the term "procession" is all-embracing, subject only to very limited exceptions. Those exceptions are to be found in article 3(4). There is only one specific exemption. That is the one to which the Secretary of State referred. A requirement of notice does not apply to a funeral procession, although the police may impose conditions on it and the Secretary of State may direct that the deceased shall not be accorded a funeral procession at all.
The other provision in article 3(4) empowers the Secretary of State to exempt the provisions of a specific class or description. I hope, as he pointed out, that the Secretary of State will at once exempt obviously innocuous processions like those of the Salvation Army. But there is no general exemption for the school crocodile. Is it seriously intended that notice must be given before class of schoolchildren can move from one building to another, or will that be one of the exemption orders that he makes? If so, perhaps the Minister of State will tell us so at the end of the debate.

Mr. William Cash: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to article 3(4). It is arguable that greater latitude is here given by the Secretary of State under article 3(4)(b) for precisely the opposite reasons from those given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Crocodiles of schoolchildren could just as easily be excluded from that category by the Secretary of State. It is a little disingenuous of him to say that it automatically follows that school crocodiles would be included when this power has been taken precisely in order to deal with innocuous occasions of that kind.

Mr. Archer: I hope that the Secretary of State will take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, because I echo it. But if the intention were to exclude school crocodiles, why not say so in the order and set everybody's mind as rest? We have specifically excluded funeral processions. What is so different about school crocodiles? I understand that it was the Salvation Army kind of situation that the Secretary of State had in mind. If he intends to exempt school crocodiles, the sooner he says so and sets our minds at rest the better.
What about trade union processions? To my knowledge, they have never been a source of violence or disorder in Northern Ireland. Are trade unions to be brought into these provisions by stealth, as they have been in previous legislation, simply because they are not included among the exceptions?
Article 2(2) includes a requirement that is absent from the Public Order Act 1986 which applies in Great Britain. As the Secretary of State has just reminded us, in Northern Ireland the notice must include the number of persons who are likely to take part in the procession. I assume that one reason for its absence from the Act is that it is virtually impossible for the organisers of a procession to know in advance the numbers likely to take part. Anybody who has


tried to organise a meeting of hon. Members in this House will know that there is no way of predicting how many are likely to turn up.
I confess that I am not sure of the consequences if the organisers get the numbers wrong. Article 3(5)(b) states that a person who organises or takes part in a procession which is held on a date, at a time or along a route which differs from the date, time or route specified in relation to it in the notice
shall be guilty of an offence. There is nothing about getting the numbers wrong. Article 3(5)(a) states that it is an offence to organise or take part in a procession
in respect of which the requirements of the Article as to notice have not been satisfied".
One of those requirements is that the numbers likely to take part shall be specified, but so is the date, the time and the route. Do the Government take the view that article 3(5)(a) does not apply to those requirements and that they have to be dealt with separately in article 3(5)(b)? If so, why do the words of article 3(5)(a) not mean what they appear to mean in ordinary English? If it does apply, why is it necessary to make special provision for failure to supply those details in article 3(5)(b)? If that is necessary, and as there is no provision in article 3(5)(b) for failing to specify the expected numbers, what is the sanction against someone who fails to specify the exempted numbers?
While the Secretary of State is sorting that out, before leaving article 3(5) I note that the order makes it an offence not only to organise a procession in respect of which the requirements as to notice have not been satisfied, but even to take part in such a procession. That is a clear contrast with section 11(7) of the Act which applies to Great Britain.
I appreciate that it is not always easy to identify the organisers when confronted by a procession. If there had been an opportunity to discuss the order in Committee and to suggest amendments, we might have explored how to meet that difficulty. But have the Government considered the consequences of what they are doing here for someone who is exercising his right simply to take part in an apparently lawful procession? That person has to ask to see a copy of the notice which has been given, to satisfy himself of its accuracy and that it was properly given, or risk being found guilty of an offence which carries a penalty of up to six months' imprisonment. That is such an incursion into a right which is taken for granted in a democracy that it cannot be acceptable.
Finally, among the provisions relating to the notice of processions, the Public Order Act permits notice to be served by post. No such facility is contemplated in this order. I understand that there may be a problem for those organising processions in England, if the route lies through the areas of two or more police authorities, but surely that is not the question. The question is whether the police can live with service of notice by post. In Great Britain they can. What is so different in Northern Ireland that police stations cannot be equipped with letter boxes?
I have just referred to the requirement of notice. The questions multiply when one turns to imposing conditions and prohibitions. They include not only processions, but open-air meetings. They are concerned not only with marching through an area, past people's homes, but with meetings in which people stay in the same place. It is true that the Act relating to Great Britain refers to assemblies,

although it does not call them public meetings. The Secretary of State did not explain why there has been a change in terminology. An "assembly" is defined as 20 or more people. There is no similar limitation for the definition of a public meeting in the order. Presumably, it could be a public meeting, if the chairman and the secretary only were there.
I understand that in Northern Ireland, perhaps on a day for which a rally or a general strike has been arranged, a few people standing on a street corner in a housing estate may amount to an unspoken threat. If that is the situation that the Government contemplate in the order, they have not dealt with it. Although the definition in the order does not say one way or the other, I assume that a private conversation is not included, even if it is in a public place and attended by half a dozen people.
The term "meeting" surely implies an element of formal procedure, with a chairman and speeches, and it must entail a degree of prior organisation with invitations to the public to attend. So the provision misses what some may think should be its real target. I wonder why there has been a change in terminology from the word "assembly", which might have hit the target, but what it may well catch is a vigil outside a church or an industrial picket. Whatever the Government's intention, the order is not an appropriate vehicle for changing the law relating to industrial disputes. If the Government wish to do that, they should introduce an order dealing with industrial relations, when everyone is on notice as to what they are about.
The grounds on which a police officer may act in imposing conditions, and on which the Secretary of State may act in prohibiting a procession or meeting, go well beyond public order considerations. If a police officer has to decide whether to impose conditions because the procession may result in
serious disruption to the life of the community,
what he has to consider is its impact on such things as shopping or transport. That means that he must balance the right to shop against the right to demonstrate. In certain circumstances that judgment may have to be made. There can be no absolute rule either way because neither right is sacrosanct. A balance must be struck in each situation.
But that is a political judgment which cannot be struck by any rigid application of some rule, even if the order contained rules, which it does not. But the order states that that judgment must be made by a police officer. A police officer is not the right person to make such a judgment. Even if his decision is subject to judicial review, the grounds on which a review can be entertained do not extend to the courts substituting their judgment for that of the police officer. Even if they did, the court is hardly a more appropriate vehicle to make a political judgment than a police officer.
The Secretary of State reminded us of some of the things said by the Chief Constable. Last year the Chief Constable very fairly said that that is not a task for which the police should be made responsible. He suggested a tribunal. I would not go to the stake for any particular solution to the problem. But I am sure that, in Northern Ireland especially, no one will be satisfied by a political judgment which is made by the police. Indeed, that is not fair to the police.

Mr. Cash: I am not sure whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to the difference between


a public assembly and an open meeting. I believe that his first point related to the size of the meeting. He has now moved on to the question of the extent to which the police will make decisions. On that point, I refer him to section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, in which it is quite clear that both provisions are on the same main point.

Mr. Archer: I was not making the point that there is a difference between who makes the decision here and who makes it under the Public Order Act, but I was making the point that, in Northern Ireland especially, political decisions should not be made by the police. I am not happy about the police making political decisions anywhere, but in Northern Ireland in particular it cannot be a way of increasing public confidence to know that a decision was made by the police. Moreover, it is not fair to the police.
The equivalent judgment in relation to a prohibition is to be made by the Secretary of State. That is right in principle; political judgments should be made by a politician who is answerable to the House. But it does not follow that the people of Northern Ireland repose complete confidence in an English Secretary of State. His judgment is not always seen as unquestionable so that further argument is precluded.
The right to judicial review would have enabled a court to inquire whether that judgment was based on accurate factual information; whether it took account of all relevant factors; and whether it was influenced by wholly improper considerations. More extensive use of the public review procedure in recent years has, indeed, restored some public confidence in administration, yet in article 5(3) we read:
A recital in an order made by the Secretary of State under paragraph (1) as to his opinion and the information upon which that opinion was formed shall be conclusive evidence of the matters stated therein.
Presumably that is intended to exclude judicial review. It is a recital that the Secretary of State is to be deemed infallible, his powers are not to be questioned in the courts, and he is above the law. Why does the Secretary of State want to go out of his way to minimise public confidence in these procedures? Have the ineptitudes of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the consequent succession of chastisements he has received from the courts caused the entire Cabinet to resolve to place their activities beyond the reach of the law?
Next the order permits the Secretary of State to prohibit a procession or meeting if it is likely to cause
undue demands to be made upon the police or military forces.
Clearly it would be a consideration to be taken into account if the police were precluded from protecting the public against crime. But what is an undue demand on the police must depend partly on what resources have been made available to them. It would be curious if the Government could reduce the rights of a citizen by reducing the resources available to the police. Our civil liberties would rest in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, given the present incumbent, that would not inspire confidence. Yet that is what is what the order implies. I venture to predict that if that provision were challenged under the European convention on human rights, the Government may well find that they are in breach.
Before I leave part II of the order, I wonder whether article 4(1)(b) hits the target at which it is aimed. No one can have sympathy with a procession or meeting held to

intimidate people, but I see two shortcomings in the test of intimidation. First, it is based on the purpose of the event, so the test is subjective: what do the organisers intend? Would it not have been better to speak of the likely consequence and so to introduce an objective test? Secondly, intimidation is defined as
the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do".
Intimidation does not always consist of compelling people to do something. It may amount simply to placing them in fear. If, in consequence, they decide that they cannot face the situation any longer and they sell up and move away, those who organised the meeting may be able to say with truth that that was not their purpose and that all they meant to do was to terrify the local population. Had there been a Committee stage, we might have made that provision more effective.
Finally on part II, since there is a requirement that there shall be seven days' notice of the intention to hold a procession, should there not be ample notice to the organisers if conditions are to be placed on that procession or if it is to be prohibited? If they are to be told of these directives at the last minute when everyone has assembled that may well invite unnecessary trouble.
We welcome part III. The right of free speech cannot be absolute and one proper restriction is that it must not be abused to stir up tribal hatred or to arouse fear. The most obvious target in Northern Ireland will be people on one side of the sectarian divide, but there is a Chinese community there which sometimes feels anxiety and there are Indian families who could easily become a target. I understand that the legislation which exists in Great Britain against discriminatory behaviour—for example, in the supply of goods—has no equivalent in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government will address themselves one day to that, but this, at least, is a beginning.
On the remainder of the order, we are pleased to see the Government implementing their promise to repeal the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954. That Act can render unlawful in Northern Ireland conduct which would be perfectly lawful in Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow. It is intended to be discriminatory, and it is a pointless and provocative restriction on civil rights. We shall not mourn its passing.
Two articles require further discussion. Article 21 imposes sanctions on the wearing of a uniform, but there is no definition of that term. If in a public place in Northern Ireland I arrive wearing a Labour party rosette, is that a uniform? What if I wear a Labour party tie? What if, simply because it is fashionable amongst those of us who are bright and young, I wear a red jersey, particularly if, having regard to the bright spring sunshine, I add a pair of sunglasses? What of the French tourist whom we discussed in Standing Committee on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill who turns up wearing a beret?

Mr. Seamus Mallon: A brown beret.

Mr. Archer: I think we mentioned a red or black beret, but the possibilities are endless. I shall not embark on them.
However reasonably the courts construe the term, it is important that people should know clearly whether they are infringing the criminal law. They should know what


they have a right to do and what will render them liable to three months' imprisonment. That article requires further discussion.
As to article 23, I do not say that trespass should never, in any circumstances, be a criminal offence. But we should exercise great restraint in applying criminal sanctions to what has historically been a matter for civil litigation, particularly when we turn to article 24(2) and find that it carries a power of arrest without warrant.
The article applies to entry into any public building as a trespasser. It would apply to occupation in the course of an industrial dispute. Whatever the merits of limiting the actions of employees in such a situation, they require separate discussion and debate and belong in industrial relations legislation. Even if we are considering the right to carry out a political demonstration in a public building, I am not persuaded that tenants of the Housing Executive who feel so strongly about an issue that they would be moved to protest by visiting the official concerned therefore should, be guilty of a criminal offence, provided that their entry and protest are without violence.
The reason why we cannot support this order is not that we do not believe that there are problems in Northern Ireland relating to public order; not that we object to every solution that the Government propose; not that we believe that all Northern Ireland legislation should be by way of a Bill with a formal Committee stage; not even the absence of proper consultation; but that the Government have wholly failed to distinguish between proposals that can be adequately discussed by way of an unamendable order and proposals which, by reason of their importance, their impact upon basic rights and the necessity of striking the right balance in each case, require fuller discussion in the House—the only forum in which they can be properly discussed. A Government who do not appreciate that distinction are not sensitive to the needs of a democracy and cannot be entrusted with the judgments entailed in this legislation.
I believe that many of our anxieties are shared by Conservative Members and we invite them to join us in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Michael Brown: I agree with much of what the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said about this being an order rather than a Bill. The experience of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill, has been good. Although I did not serve on the Standing Committee, I am sure that my right hon. Friend and the Minister of State will agree that as a result of that process the Bill will he given Royal Assent as an improved Bill.
The legislative procedure enables hon. Members who are concerned about aspects of a Bill to express their concern and to press Ministers in detail by tabling amendments. If they are satisfied with the assurances that they receive from Ministers they can withdraw their amendments. At least the facility exists, even if hon. Members do not choose to press their amendments to a vote. The procedure enables hon. Members to seek assurances, undertakings and statements from the Government. It enables hon. Members who feel strongly about an aspect of a Bill to register their protest, while welcoming the Bill generally.
I find myself in such a situation with regard to the order. There is much in the order with which I am in agreement. There is much in it to commend it to the House. A certain amount of consolidation is necessary, and the order, rightly, does that and will ensure that we have one reference point in the future. I welcome that aspect of the order.
However, I am concerned about the repeal of the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, although not to the extent of voting against the order tonight. That is the problem. The order is on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. If we wish to register a protest about some aspect, we can do so only by opposing the whole order. I do not wish to do that and I shall not do so later, but I am worried about the flags and emblems aspect.
I accept entirely the view that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expressed in his speech earlier, that there is no nasty dark plot behind this. He rightly drew attention to the fact that no cases had resulted from the 1954 Act since 1969. I accept that that is probably a largely redundant Act, but I question the wisdom of repealing it at this time.
A large section of the Northern Ireland community—the Unionist community in particular — for better or worse, rightly or wrongly, feel that the Government have let them down. I accept my right hon. Friend's statement earlier, but the perception among those on the other side of the water will be that this is some dark and devious plot. I and most hon. Members know that that is not so, but that will be the perception. I wonder whether now is the right time to repeal that Act. The Government have the difficulty of trying to secure agreement and support—I do not think that they will get it, but they will seek to do so—for the Anglo-Irish agreement. This will not help the Government in that task. We should let sleeping dogs lie when we need so much good will and when the Government are having great difficulty in obtaining support from the Unionist community in Northern Ireland for their Anglo-Irish agreement. It must surely be unwise to include that item in the order, although that, of itself, will not make me oppose the order later.
I understand entirely why my right hon. Friend has felt it necessary to require notice of demonstrations. I accept that he is introducing the measure on the advice of the RUC. The RUC has a difficult job in Northern Ireland at present and anything that it recommends to the Government must be taken seriously. There will be some concern in some parts of the Northern Ireland community about the extent to which legitimate protest is being frustrated. I was glad to have my right hon. Friend's assurance from the Dispatch Box earlier that the right of legitimate protest will not be limited. In a democracy, even in Northern Ireland where there are strains on the democracy, it must be right for communities to be able to register their protest peacefully.
My right hon. Friend said that the Government had responded to the consultation with regard to the measure whereby there will be the opportunity for spontaneous demonstrations. My right hon. Friend has on one occasion used the example of the welcoming of a football team, or something of that kind. Such a spontaneous public demonstration of support would not require the six or seven-day rule. However, if a senior politician representing the Irish Government went to Stormont to participate in some aspect of the Anglo-Irish agreement discussions, some people might want to demonstrate spontaneously


about intrusion by a foreign politician. Will that be caught by the order? My right hon. Friend shakes his head and I am grateful to him for that. He has reassured me that that will not be the case.
Much in this order needs to be implemented. I support it but I regret that we legislate for Northern Ireland in a different way from the rest of the United Kingdom. The experience of the Bill recently before the House was good because it resulted in full discussions on all aspects of the Bill. Hon. Members were able to respond to those concerns in a very positive way.
I wish it were possible for this order to be the subject of a Bill instead. Nevertheless, I shall support it.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I preface my remarks by saying that, like the Secretary of State, I have been astounded. I did not realise that there was so much concern for civil liberties in the north of Ireland until the debate on this order started.
I think that we must look at it—and I choose to do this—from three angles, because, unless we do, we shall not be dealing with it in the proper way. We must look at it in the context of what is happening in the north of Ireland and the quality of life that we are experiencing there; we must look at it from the point of view of the rights of the individual; and, equally important, we must look at it from the point of view of the rights of the community.
I have heard the term "civil libertarian" used more often in the past three or four weeks than I have ever heard it in northern Irish life. I hope that I speak in this debate as nothing other than a civil libertarian. I came into politics through street protest, through a civil rights organisation, and I wish to preserve the absolute right to make a peaceful protest for every single person in the north of Ireland. But I say that with the civil libertarian conviction that those who are charged with administering society have a responsibility to protect the weak, the defenceless, the most vulnerable people, and not in any way to bolster the bully, the bigot or the triumphalist. That definition of a civil libertarian approach is one that I hope I shall be able to express in my remarks on the order.
I must examine the order in the context of Northern Ireland in the recent past. Listening to the Secretary of State and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) I began to wonder whether I was living in a different world; I began to wonder whether I was imagining things that have happened over the past two or three years; I began to wonder whether I had been dreaming about last summer and the summer before and the summer before that. There was an air of unreality about it, and that centred on two things.
I do not wish to do a disservice to the Secretary of State, hut I think that he was slightly disingenuous when he made his remarks about the way in which processions and marches take place in the north of Ireland. I have no objection whatsoever to people marching, for whatever reason, provided that they do not do it to insult another section of the community; provided that they do not do it in such a way as to bring disruption to the lives of ordinary people; and provided that it is not a coat-trailing exercise — a way of inflaming passions within the community.
I say that very clearly because the reality is that we do have a triumphalist approach, we do have a display of

atavism right from Easter Monday to 22 November, which I personally cannot believe the north of Ireland can stand much longer, not just in terms of the disruption of people's lives or the fear and tension that it creates, but in terms of the cost to the Exchequer and, as a result of that, to the community.
I could understand the great desire to hold marches, processions and public meetings if they were held to celebrate something, to bring joy to the community, not, as unfortunately many of them are, as a statement of ascendancy by one section of the community over the other. I see no excuse for allowing a small or large section of any community to create that tension, fear and community upheaval on an on-going basis without being able to defend the right of the weak and vulnerable people within our society who suffer as a result.
I do not want to labour the House with details or examples. I shall refer specifically to Portadown, a place which over the years has experienced curfews for four or five days running because of the insistence of Loyalist marches through the Obin street area and the Gervaghy road area where there is no support for those who are organising the marches. I use the word "curfew" consciously because the protection afforded by the security forces for the marchers — not to protect the people who should be protected—takes about four days to set up and dismantle. Can we ask people to continue like that, especially as there is an acceptable alternative route for those marchers to which no-one would object? The alternative route is shorter and more direct. It is there; let it be used.
I think of people in Rathfriland who, at certain times in July, are in such fear of their lives that it is unbelievable. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for the way that they got to grips last year with that tribal night when the ritualistic attacks took place.
I think of people in places such as Cookstown and Dunlow where they have to undergo an exercise in intimidation on a bi-yearly basis. Those people deserve our consideration. They deserve our consideration in civil libertarian terms and I must say, having experienced this sort of thing first hand in the north of Ireland for many years, the lives of ordinary people who want simply to live out their lives in peace during the summer months are much more of concern to me than where the full stop goes in this order or where one word might replace another.
As the Secretary of State has said, we have 2,200 marches in a year. That is a large number of marches. The Secretary of State understated the situation. I believe that it was he who confirmed that of the 2,200 marches, about 186 are contentious and involve considerable controversy. Those controversial marches have caused great suffering and cost to the community. For example, the Official Report shows that the demonstration that took place on the so-called day of action on 3 March 1986 cost £470,000 in police overtime alone. That is £470,000 of our money. If it cost that in police overtime, what did it cost overall and in terms of claims against the Northern Ireland Office?
Another example from the Official Report shows that between May and September of 1986 it took 334,000 police man hours to police that sort of march. To my reckoning—it is a conservative reckoning—that would work out somewhere in the region of £8 million. I can think of a lot of things and a lot of people in the north of Ireland who could do with £8 million. I think of the number of schools


it would build and the facilities that could be put into hospitals. I think of the number of tables on which £8 million could put food where at present there is simply no food.
We cannot allow to continue — we must rethink — anything which has this cost in human suffering, disruption and financial loss. If we are to be serious about it, now is the time. I dislike many things in this order but I shall have to swallow them. Against that I have to weigh my own views and prejudices. I have to think of the welfare of old people in Portadown during 1987, 1988 and 1989, and of young families living in Kilkeel under the type of physical attack that they experienced last year. I have to think of watching a man and his family in their house in Keady which was set on fire during a procession. The police and fire brigade could not get into the house and only by the grace of God did that family get out.
I have to think of a working man coming home from a 12-hour stint in Belfast, having driven 40 or 50 miles, being caught up in a parade in his own village night after night, having to leave his car and walk another one and a half miles home after a hard day's work. I have to think of the quality of our lives which are scarred by violence, eaten into by unemployment, and which must be protected from bigotry, triumphalism and coat-trailing exercises.
Secondly, I focus on the rights of the individual. It is essential that each person has the right to peaceful protest. Any attempt to remove that right will be counter-productive. Every person in society must have the right to free speech and to hold meetings where he can peacefully propagandise his own views. But he cannot do that at the expense of the young, the old, or the families of the community. We take a very simplistic and sincerely naive approach and we react as refugees from the reality of Northern Ireland if we do not face the problem and deal with it.
The Secretary of State could have been a little more honest when he referred to the differences between this order and the Public Order Act 1986. This order is substantially different in many ways, as it has to be, for very good and valid reasons. The Secretary of State has power to ban or re-route marches. If that power does not reside in the Secretary of State there is no ultimate protection for the community. The police, rightly, regard these marches as operational concerns and, like every other body of professionals, they are jealous of their ability to handle situations, some of which perhaps they cannot deal with. It is essential that that power resides in the Secretary of State and is used wisely and when necessary.
We have read and heard about static assemblies or outdoor meetings. I do not know if it is called a public meeting in this order. I remember seeing on television the Secretary of State being a victim of the actions of a static assembly. On Thursday last week I drove a carload of young people to a youth forum in my constituency to discuss unemployment. We came across a static assembly. It was not static for very long because concrete blocks came through the window of my car, which was seriously damaged and almost destroyed. Luckily, none of the young people was killed. They were going to a meeting to discuss how they might deal with unemployment and ways of creating peace. That is the reality of a static assembly.
I ask the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West to accept that people come out of the woodwork at

night, or at some other time, do what they have to do—it is not always good — and disappear. In such circumstances, there must be the type of latitude that will allow the person on the spot to make a decision. That person on the spot will be a policeman.

Mr. Archer: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I suggested what I thought was a method of making these provisions more effective in relation to that situation.

Mr. Mallon: I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I simply wanted to say that these things happen in such a way that no type of plan can cater for them.
There are four reasons why the powers under the order are in many ways much stronger than I should like: first, to prevent public disorder; secondly, to prevent serious damage to property; thirdly, to prevent serious disruption to the life of the community; and fourthly, to prevent intimidation of others. We must ask whether those are valid conditions. I believe that they are.
The order refers also to incitement to hatred or fear. But there has not been one conviction under the Prevention of Incitement to Hatred (Northern Ireland) Act 1970. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has said:
By contrast in Great Britain not only has the law been strengthened since its original introduction but it has been applied and successfully enforced on a number of occasions".
There is a strong case for strengthening the law on incitement to hatred. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights said:
though there should be a presumption in favour of freedom of expression, every democratic state has had to recognise and define for itself permissible limits which may be placed upon freedom of expression in the interests of a greater good".
I put that in the context of the responsibilities under article 20(2) of the international covenant on civil and political rights, which states:
Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discriminate, hostility or violence should be prohibited by law.
It does not say "may be", "might be", but "shall be". It is in those terms that I welcome this part of the order.
The standing advisory commission has summarised the reasons why this action is necessary in the north of Ireland and I should like to give examples which might bring us towards reality. First, religion and politics in the north of Ireland are so closely intertwined that there is an extra emotional dimension to the political arena. This stems from sincerely held political beliefs. Secondly, there is the effect of statements on the public. I should like to try one such statement on this public—the terms used by a politician in the north of Ireland who was sitting on an area board dealing with education. He said:
They"—
meaning Catholic members of the community in the north of Ireland—
should acquire an incinerator and burn the lot of them as they are only Fenian scum".
Those words were quoted at his trial on 2 October 1986. I know the effect that has on me and the effect that it will have on many right-thinking persons, but what effect will it have on hot-headed young people in the cauldron that exists in the north of Ireland?
The third reason the standing advisory commission gave was polarisation of society. Again I would like to use a quotation from an hon. Member speaking in Cookstown


in 1986. The massive contribution made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North ( Rev. Ian Paisley) towards the end of polarisation in the north of Ireland was:
No self respecting Unionist should trade, buy, socialise or have anything to do with members of the SDLP or alliance party.
The fourth reason given is conformity with international obligations and I have already spoken about that. There are two key changes. First, in relation to the requirement to prove intent before convictions could be obtained in relation to the Prevention of Incitement to Hatred (Northern Ireland) Act 1970. Now the offence can be proved if there is likelihood of hatred or fear being aroused having regard to all the circumstances. Those people who make utterances of the type that I have quoted are well aware of the significance of such utterances. The final say rests with the courts and it will be interesting to see how they deal with the order.
I voice my concern about sections 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 in relation to the media. The power of the media is of particular significance after what happened in Glasgow over the Zircon affair. Everyone must be concerned about that. We must protect the rights of the media to report what has happened and what has been said. We must ensure that there is no pressure from any source upon the media. I know that the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority are excluded from this legislation, but what will happen with regard to Radio Telefis Eireann? That broadcasts to the north of Ireland and it is bound by section 31 regulations preventing people from paramilitary groupings appearing on it. It is crucial that we defend the right of the press and the media whether electronic or written in every way that we can.
With regard to the repeal of the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, unlike a previous speaker I do not see it as an emotional matter. It is an anachronism and a deplorable relic from a discredited regime. As it is written it is an insult to one section of the community and has been inoperative for a long time. It has succeeded in doing nothing but giving offence and allows people to surround flags and emblems with emotive connotations.
I have seen enough of what I would call brush-handle politics in the north of Ireland. Brush-handle politics means that one gets the flag, which it is assumed one respects, ties it to a brush handle and uses it as a means of annoying people who represent the political opposition. That happens with the Union Jack and with the tricolour. I believe that those people who use it for political, sectarian or religious purposes are demeaning not only themselves but the flag which they purport to respect.
I believe that that Act should be replaced by tolerance. I hope that it will be replaced by a new tolerance for the other tradition and for the symbols of the other tradition which may sooth the fears the other tradition may have about its position in Northern Ireland. I believe that if that tolerance comes out of consideration of this order it will represent an advancement on the present situation.
Reluctantly I shall vote for the order because I believe that it is the only way open to me to protect the well-being and the lives of the very old and the very young in the community from the excesses and triumphalism that they must endure each year.

Mr. William Cash: I voted in favour of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and I never had any doubt that that agreement was the right way in which to tackle the problems of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. That was my view at the time of the vote.
The order has been brought before us under a procedure which differs from the public Bill procedure. I have considerable sympathy with those on both sides of the House who have expressed the view that it would be better if we could manage to produce a more satisfactory procedure for dealing with legislation affecting Northern Ireland. I have suggested in the past that we should have a Select Committee on Northern Ireland, or alternatively the ability to refer legislation of this sort to something in the nature of a Special Standing Committee. It seems imperative that such legislation should be examined thoroughly on a similar basis to that which exists for other legislation that is considered in the House.
Many who normally attend debates of this sort but who are not present this evening would argue for consistency in the legislative process, but the circumstances prevailing in Northern Ireland are quite different from those which pertain in the United Kingdom as a whole. It is equally true that the Official Unionists are deeply divided between themselves. I deplore the fact that they are not present this evening to consider the order. The Official Unionists are deeply divided and there are signs that soon there will be a severe split between them, leading to the Democratic Unionist party breaking away in a manner that will be potentially dangerous for the Province.
The proposals that are before us have been deeply and seriously misrepresented by those who oppose the principle of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. If we are to have marches — there are proper circumstances in which marches can take place in Northern Ireland—they must take place in a responsible and orderly manner. There is no doubt that, despite the instances given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, there have been a number of occasions, especially at Portadown, when the degree of civil disorder that transpired was so bad that new legislation was required. Much of this legislation is based upon the original legislation of 1970 and the Public Order Act 1986, and I welcome the provisions that are set out in the order. There is no doubt that we must have regard to the special circumstances of Northern Ireland in dealing with extremely difficult problems.
It seems that the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 had become an anachronism, and it is as well that it is dealt with in the order. There has been criticism that public processions are not defined in a way that limits them to the sort of processions, apart from funeral processions, that should be covered. The fact is that there is and has been a significant misuse of the rights that exist. Therefore, it is right for the Secretary of State to extend to all processions the requirement to give notice of public processions, and I fully support the proposals in the order to that end.
There has been discussion about public meetings, about whether the size of a public meeting is sufficiently well defined and, by analogy, about whether it would be more appropriate for the definition of an assembly as set out in the Public Order Act 1986 to be applied in the order. When we consider the legislation which we passed recently affecting the rest of the United Kingdom and the


circumstances in which legislation has to apply in Northern Ireland, the distinctions which have been drawn are entirely justified. I would go further and say that the powers which the Secretary of State has taken to himself are required because in the tragic circumstances which apply in Northern Ireland it is necessary to have a fullback provision.
The definitions of "fear" and "hatred" in article 8 regrettably have to apply to religious belief. The conditions which we hoped would have improved over the past 15 years have so markedly not improved that these definitions are required.
The order has been accused of doing many things, but it will provide for greater consistency in the legislation applying to the United Kingdom as a whole. There are differences but they are justifiable. We all regret that there is such a tragic situation in Northern Ireland, but I believe that the order will go a long way to improving it. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is still in place and it is clear that it will remain in place. The determination and courage of the Ministers who have had to maintain that policy are to be greatly applauded.

Mr. David Alton: Universal opprobrium has been heaped from all parts of the House on the use of unamendable orders. I associate myself with those remarks, but I think that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made the point eloquently when he said that the situation in Northern Ireland is not normal. So it is inevitable that procedures that none of us likes very much sometimes have to be used in the context of Northern Ireland.
I understood from what the Secretary of State said that he was willing to have discussions with hon. Members from other parts of the House, even perhaps in the absence of Members of the Unionist parties, about reintroducing more normal procedures in the use of Bills so that we can have proper debates, with amendments being tabled. That would mean that we would not be faced with the stark choice, as we will be when we vote tonight, of being for or against an order about which we all have reservations.
My right hon. and hon. Friends in the alliance parties will support the Government tonight because we recognise the realities which were spelt out by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and which apply in Northern Ireland, although I understood and accept some of the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). He made an eloquent Second Reading speech and also dealt with some Committee points. If we could have had a Second Reading debate and a debate in Committee, I think that some of the differences between the two front Benches could have been ironed out and probably no Division would have been necessary. Any worries that we may have about the use of unamendable orders cannot surely match the deep repugnance that all of us must feel for the bigoted and menacing shows of strength that the Secretary of State described. I found it staggering that 2,200 marches have taken place in Northern Ireland in the last year.
I welcoming the order, I should like to thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for the response to the representations made by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) in

response to the invitation to take part in the consultation process. The letter that the Minister sent to us on 18 February answered a number of our reservations and worries. His assurance that spontaneous action would not be covered by the terms of this order, should effectively ensure that punitive action is not taken against innocuous groups of residents who wish to make some point about a burning local issue or against groups like school crocodiles mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West.
In our representations to the Minister and in the speech by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on Second Reading of the Public Order Bill, we spelled out the inevitable concern of Liberals about striking the right balance between public order and the right peacefully to protest. We also place our longer-term trust in the confidence and trust of the community rather than in increased powers. The emphasis should be on a return to normal policing as quickly as possible. To facilitate that the time is ripe to establish more formal and mutually beneficial links and relationships between police at sub-divisional level and locally elected representatives and other responsible organisations and groups.
We should like to see established statutory police liaison committees, perhaps along the lines of those that have operated for many years in Derry, that contain an elected element and have a statutory right of consultation on marches and demonstrations. Members of these committees should be required to make a declaration committing themselves to democratic methods and a renunciation of violence. I should like to see experiments in community policing in areas where that is possible. The Royal Ulster Constabulary should consider having open days so that the public can obtain a clearer idea of the nature of police work.
All these trends can be encouraged, but we accept that they cannot be realistic at the moment because of the situation in Northern Ireland. We want to see as much movement as possible towards normalisation, and we do not want to see a reduction in civil liberties as a result of the present strife in Northern Ireland. That is why we also want the Goverment to consider complementing the kind of measures they are introducing by, for instance, establishing a wholly independent police complaints board.
We would also like to see the incorporation of a Bill of Rights—even in lieu of incorporation into the statutes for the rest of Great Britain—in the laws of Northern Ireland. We would like to see that backed by a commission on human rights. Although that kind of legislation will not necessarily be a panacea, it will safeguard the sort of civil liberties and civil rights that quite properly have been raised by hon. Members in this debate.
The issue of marches is the primary concern of this debate. We recognise that many of the marches are intimidatory and offensive, and are designed to create tension and to whip up unrest. Their use by extreme elements has been a chief cause of the never-ending hostility between the two warring tribes. Marches often incite and offend and that inevitably leads to retaliatory action. We have heard something about that in the debate.
The motives of people outside the House who are opposed to these orders were well summed up in remarks by the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams). Their words


demonstrate the reasons why those hon. Members are opposed to the order and perhaps why hon. Members in the House ought to be united in supporting the order. In the Irish News of 26 February the hon. Member for Belfast, West said:
'The real purpose of the Public Order Bill however is the further repression of Republican and nationalist expression. It will significantly restrict free speech and political expression and is quite specifically aimed at the traditional Easter commemorations.'
His remarks — ironically, some might think — were echoed by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. The Belfast Telegraph states that, last month, he
told a Press conference in Belfast that the new legislation on public order was designed to 'stifle' protest against the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
He is reported as saying:
when the order became law there should be a 'simultaneous uprising' by loyalists in towns, villages and hamlets throughout Northern Ireland".
The article further states:
parades and public meetings should be held as an act of defiance against the new measures, which, he claimed, were a direct result of the Intergovernmental Conference.
He said: 'This, the latest product of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, is an attempt to stifle completely the voice of protest, and to destroy civil and religious liberties in Northern Ireland.'
I refute what the hon. Members for Belfast, West and for Antrim, North have said. It is significant that they are united in their opposition to the order. They recognise that if the ugliness of marches can be taken off the streets of Northern Ireland, and if some order can be put in the place of menacing and intimidating marches, the kind of extremism for which they stand can be combated. It certainly will lead to the normalisation of Northern Ireland that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is all about.
The kind of remarks that have been passed outside the Chamber are grossly irresponsible. As other hon. Members have said, those who make such remarks should be in the House of Commons to justify what they have said. Whipping up unrest and disquiet on the streets of Belfast is no task for a parliamentarian.

Mr. Archer: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the comments of those who oppose the order from outside the House. In turn, does he agree that it does not follow from the fact that they gave unattractive reasons that there may not be good reasons for opposing the order?

Mr. Alton: In my earlier remarks, I recognised that some of the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman put forward would normally have been met in Committee or on Second Reading. It is because of the unhappy way in which the order has been introduced that we cannot debate the minutiae. The order is like a curate's egg. There are matters in it of which we approve and others of which we disapprove. The balance of judgment of my party is that the order should be supported, not least because of the kind of remarks that were passed outside the House and the signal that might be sent to the hon. Members for Belfast, West and for Antrim, North, if we were seen to be in opposition to the order.
We, in common with Labour Opposition Members and other hon. Members who have spoken tonight, are pleased about the decision on the flags and emblems legislation. The other piece of legislation that is normally coupled with it is the Public Health and Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1949,

Section 19(4) of that Act deals with the erection of street signs in Gaelic as well as in English. Is it the Government's intention to bring in an order which might deal with that offensive piece of legislation as well? It has quite justifiably—like the flags and emblems legislation-given cause for concern in the minority community in Northern Ireland over many years.
The people of Great Britain are growing increasingly weary of the outpourings of hatred in Northern Ireland. The measure deals firmly with the perpetrators of bigotry and prejudice, and represent positive progress towards the creation of a community in which both traditions will learn to respect and tolerate the other. For those reasons, we shall vote in the Government Lobby this evening.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The order gives the opportunity to raise serious public order issues. I wish to raise one such matter—a monstrous travesty of public order committed by the state authorities. In the autumn of 1982, a shoot-to-kill policy was activated by the security forces in Northern Ireland. A special squad, the RUC mobile support unit, set up ambushes and went on a shooting spree. The 12 October 1986 edition of The Observer described three murderous events. On 11 November it stated:
As they closed from behind, the MSU man stretched Out of the passenger window, pouring shots into the Escort from his machine gun … The scene, one policeman described as 'like the Wild West' … The chased car careered into a ditch, riddled with bullet-holes. No fewer than 109 shots had been fired in a few minutes. Forensic evidence later proved that one of the men was shot through the heart, with his door open, presumably after the chase ended. Toman, McKerr and Burns were unarmed. All were dead.
The Observer, on 24 November, referring to what happened in a hayshed in Armagh, said:
After the firing stopped, a 17-year old boy, Michael Tighe, was found dead inside. He was innocent of republican connections but had accompanied McAuley.
The MSU would not necessarily have realised that he was coming and an MI5 bug had, unknowingly to the MSU, been placed in the hayshed and this killing was taped.
Again, The Observer on 12 September said:
A plain Peugeot had been trailing the unarmed Seamus Grew and Roddy Carroll's yellow Allegro all day … It went badly wrong. An army private crashed his automatic ca r into an RUC Cortina and broke a policeman's leg. Grew drove by what seemed to be a mundane road accident … They tore after the Allegro. As they slowed in front of it, the constable leapt out and pumped 15 shots in the direction of the passenger, Roddy Carroll. He killed him. He moved round to the driver's side and killed Grew, who was found not in the car but lying in the road with a bullet in the back of his head. What followed all these killings was the smooth process of cover-up and disappearance of individual responsibility via what was known as 'a Chinese Parliament.'
At the opening of the adjourned inquest on 2 September 1983 the coroner stated that he was prevented from carrying out his statutory duty by the unexplained delay of the Director of Public Prosecutions. On 22 August 1984 he resigned, saying that he found grave irregularities in the police files on the killings of Grew and Carroll. John Stalker, Manchester's deputy chief constable, was then appointed to investigate this entire shoot-to-kill affair, but we all know that he was blocked. Senior officers ordered junior colleagues to lie during the internal investigations and threatened them with the Official Secrets Act 1911. The Chief Constable of the RUC, Sir John Hermon,


personally refused to hand over the tape of the Tighe murder. Later, when Stalker won authority for access to it, Hermon announced that it had been destroyed.
By any account these are startling revelations. In a democracy explanations could be expected, but answers from this Conservative Government have been hard to get. The Prime Minister has consistently refused to answer any questions directed to her, despite the fact that she has overall responsibility for the security services. They are all passed to the Northern Ireland Office, but its replies are scant indeed.
I ask the Government to list all the officers responsible for the operations and activities of the MSU in 1982 and to explain the functions of the MSU. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland replied that it was not the practice to publish information on operational matters. I asked him to list each occasion when the RUC Chief Constable and his deputy were asked to make available the Tighe tape, and what was their response. I asked him also to explain the role of section E4A—surveillance—and essential witnesses to the killings and to say whether the Government had asked for a report about the apparent destruction of the tape recording. The Secretary of State said that he had nothing to add to his earlier reply.
In his earlier reply of 23 October 1986, the Secretary of State did not answer any of those vital questions. Instead, he stated that Mr. Sampson took over from Stalker and had completed the first part of his report dealing with the incident on 24 November 1982 in which Mr. Tighe was shot dead. He went on to say that Sampson's second report would address the associated issues connnected with all the cases that were under investigation but that it would not be published. Therefore, the whole disgraceful episode about the tape continues to be covered up.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but finding it difficult to relate what he is saying to the order. Will he please tell me which—

Mr. Cohen: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please tell me to which part of the order he is relating his remarks?

Mr. Cohen: I apologise for jumping the gun before you had finished speaking, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am referring to two parts of the order. Article 24 states:
A constable in uniform may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under Part II.
A constable might have that power, but he should not have the power to shoot, as has been the case. Part III is headed,
Stirring up hatred or arousing fear.
I cannot think of anything more likely to arouse fear than those incidents. I should like to continue on that basis because—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. He referred to article 24. That relates only to powers of arrest under this order. The hon. Gentleman went much wider than that.

Mr. Cohen: I take the point, but in that case only future events would count and we could not refer to anything in the past. That is the gist of what you are saying, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, and surely that cannot be right. I hesitate to advise you of that, but surely we must learn the lessons of the past before we can relate them to this order. That is all that I am seeking to do. I must say that such action arouses fear and that relates to the article to which I have referred, as does the constable arresting and possibly shooting those people.
There were persistent "dirty tricks" allegations during the Stalker affair, the whole purpose of which was to delay the investigation into the RUC's role in the unlawful killings. In the face of that, the Government have been cynically opportunist and have not shown any interest in that allegation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I cannot relate what he is now saying to this order, which is the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the order; otherwise he is being unfair to the House and to other hon. Members who wish to speak.

Mr. Cohen: I have attempted to raise this issue since before Christmas last year, and this is the first opportunity that there has been to raise it. It is a matter of public order and several articles relate to it—for example, carrying an offensive weapon in a public place. What were used in those cases, it not offensive weapons? Powers of entry and search are also referred to. A hay barn was entered and Michael Tighe was murdered. That aroused fear. That must be relevant and we should receive answers from the Secretary of State on those points.
The state has not brought anyone responsible for the killings to justice; and while the Director of Public Prosecutions normally decides upon prosecutions within about 10 weeks, it has been several years in this case. The conclusion can be drawn that the Government have been happy with the delay. They have been waiting for the trail to go cold, as perhaps it leads much higher up—not just to the Chief Constable, but to Downing street or the Northern Ireland Office which may, very likely, have been involved in the original policy decision for shoot-to-kill.
The leading article in The Guardian of 15 December 1986 stated:
Officers up to the rank of Chief Superintendent were expected to be charged by March with offences likely to include conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
That has not happened but, if it did, it is hard to believe that the buck stops at chief superintendent level. The Guardian continued:
London and Dublin are understood to have agreed that Sir John was not responsible for any officially sanctioned shoot-to-kill policy…but he has several questions to answer about what took place after.
The question remains; if he did not sanction it, who did? The Secretary of State should give us those answers.
That it can be suggested that the Chief Constable, or his deputy, did not know what was going on is incredible, and, even if that is the case, it smacks of negligence on an enormous scale. Furthermore, their roles in respect of the destroyed tape could have been rapidly ascertained by the Government. Again, if it was destroyed by negligence or design, or simply salted away, they had responsibility for its safe keeping, and resignations should have been asked for by the Government. They should still be forthcoming.
Amnesty International has taken up this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have advised the hon. Gentleman that he must relate his remarks to the order.


I realise that he feels strongly about this, but any remarks must be related to the business that is before the House. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that at the moment he is making any effort to relate his remarks to the order. I feel sure that he will now do so.

Mr. Cohen: I am trying hard to make my remarks relevant, particularly to the aspect of arousing fear. The order talks about recordings and a tape recording is involved in this case, so I should have thought that the case was relevant.
Amnesty International has take up this matter. Its September 1986 communiqué states:
Over the years Amnesty International has been concerned about incidents in Northern Ireland in which members of the security forces shot people dead in circumstances that gave rise to accusations that these killings were premeditated. There have reportedly been 34 fatal shootings by police or army personnel in Northern Ireland since the autumn of 1982, in 18 of which the persons killed were unarmed.
The organisation believes that it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that effective procedures and safeguards are instituted against the occurrence of such practices and that, if such practices occur, effective mechanisms are instituted to investigate and establish facts and make them public. In the organisation's view, the mechanisms existing in Northern Ireland used to investigate these incidents, such as police investigations, inquests and criminal proceedings, have not produced sufficient evidence and clarification to eliminate the possibility that unlawful use of force has been used by the security forces to kill people deliberately.
That is about order in Northern Ireland, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Amnesty International is also concerned that the laws and regulations governing the use of lethal force in law enforcement offer less protection against unjustified use of force than do international standards.
Clearly, in this matter Amnesty is showing the same concern with Britain as it would to some of the appalling state tyrannies around the world which we all deplore.
Shoot-to-kill is a despicable policy. It dispenses summary injustice, and innocent individuals are included for its instant death sentence. The killings have had horrendous personal consequences, but they are also appalling for police, public relations and respect for the law. Decent people expect the police to uphold civil
liberties and, above all, the right to life. Only civilised policing practices are wanted. Britain should immediately come into line with international standards and shoot-to kill should for ever be confined to the dustbin. To reach that stage the truth about the 1982 killings should now be fully disclosed by the Government.

Mr. Clive Soley: Several hon. Members have said that the order needs to go to Committee, and I agree with them. However, it is important that the House should consider a further reason for that which is that, if several provisions in the order become law and are challenged in certain circumstances in Northern Ireland, it will almost certainly end up with the United Kingdom again being found guilty at the Court of Human Rights. As in recent years the United Kingdom has been found guilty more than any other Western European country, that must be a matter of grave concern. As I proceed through the order, I shall select one or two of those issues. That alone is a reason for considering it in more detail than we are doing tonight and for warning the Government by voting against it.
I accept much of what has been said, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), about the reality of life in Northern Ireland. I can well understand the feelings of the communities there towards the order. If as a result of the inadequate supervision of the order through the House we are once again found wanting at the Court of Human Rights, sooner or later the Government will have to alter the legislation. That is to the advantage of no one.
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating both the Government and the RUC on facing up to Unionist demonstrations there last year for the first time. That came as a great shock to the Unionist community because it had always assumed that the RUC would automatically protect Unionists who were demonstrating, but would not do likewise for the Republican Catholic community. For the first time they came across the reality of a change in the behaviour of the RUC. Although there is still a long way to go, it would be churlish not to recognise that change, particularly in view of the pressure that was put on those RUC officers—the threats to their lives and physical assaults on them. That also needs to be borne in mind.
I remind the Minister that the order, although it has much in common with the Public Order Act that was passed for the rest of Britain, contains major differences. In his closing remarks, will the Minister tell us whether the order will affect the right to picket in the same way that section 14 of the Public Order Act in Britain did? My understanding, on looking through the order—albeit more quickly than I would like—is that it affects the right to picket because it deals with what are called open-air meetings and assemblies. A picket is an assembly, and if it is outside it can be defined as an open-air meeting. The Government must tell us whether the provisions replicate section 14 of the Public Order Act and whether they should, therefore, insert the same safeguards that the Opposition managed to insert in that measure which defines an assembly in the open as being, I think, 20 or 25 people. That was the figure that we managed to squeeze out of the Government.
I shall consider a couple of items in the order. One of the differences between the order and the Act is that the rank of the police officer involved is different, and I welcome that. In the British Act it involves an officer of any rank. A police constable may have the power to limit numbers and decide the route. In the order, in certain circumstances, it is the rank or sergeant, and in other circumstances it is the rank of inspector or above. That is welcome.
Under article 3(2) notice must be given and more detail must be given than under the equivalent Act here. One of the matters that must be assessed is the number of persons who are likely to take part in a public procession. It troubles me—we have not gone through this in the detail that we should—that that is one of the matters of which someone could be found guilty. A reasonable court would make a reasonable judgment about that, but I am afraid that we are not talking about reasonable courts and reasonable judgments; we are talking about an order which has the force of law.
The only qualifying part of article 3, as to making judgments about dates and times, routes and the number of persons who are likely to take part, is that a person had
neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, the failure to satisfy the requirements…


That is a mild check to put on the administration when it is finding an individual guilty of an offence under that article.
The point that troubles me is one that troubled us before the Act was passed in Britain, and it occurs in article 4, which deals with imposing conditions on public processions and open-air public meetings. Sub-paragraph (a) says,
it may result in serious public order disorder"—
that is fair enough—
serious damage to property"—
that is fair enough; but then there is the deadly point—
serious disruption to the life of the community.
Those people who followed the original Act through the House and much of the evidence that was given in Committee will know that the Association of Chief Officers of Police, when asked what it meant by
serious disruption to the life of the community.
came up with the answer, "A demonstration that can lead to buses being delayed and having to be re-routed." The danger of that definition is one of the matters which are open to challenge in the European Court. The European Court will accept restrictions on the right to demonstrate, the right of assembly and so on, but those restrictions have to be much more serious than a serious disruption to the life of the community, which can be interpreted as making shopping or travelling to and from work more difficult than it is normally.
It is worth bearing in mind that, although many people regard demonstrations as disruptive, a farmer in Leicestershire, on discovering that his farm was one of the proposed sites for the NIREX exploration for burying nuclear waste, said that he had always felt angry about people who demonstrated and marched, but now he felt the same way himself. The message is that in any democratic community this is a vital safeguard. It is a pressure valve against more restrictive practices being imposed on a society.
Another thing that troubles me greatly is that the police are being asked to define the circumstances. That is dangerous. Only the other year Sir John Hermon said—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) referred to this—that he did not think that the police were necessarily the most appropriate body to decide the route, time, place and number of people on marches and demonstrations.
I entirely agree with that for two reasons. The first is one of principle. The police, as the agency which enforces the laws of the state, should not be the organisation that decides whether and in what circumstances people can march and demonstrate. We must remember that we are talking about the ability to restrict the numbers of those who can march.
Secondly, and realistically in terms of Northern Ireland, if the police decide such issues they are put in the party-political firing line. They will be seen, as they were clearly seen by the Unionist community last year, to be doing the work of Dublin and London. Virtually every Unionist alleged that.
I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has an easy job, but it is up to him to take that responsibility on his shoulders. That responsibility should not be devolved to the police who then have to go back to live in their own community and be accused of

enforcing Dublin's and London's law. That is why the RUC come under so much pressure in such situations. That expectation should not be pressed upon them.
Article 5 prohibits public processions and open-air public meetings and is another area which could easily be challenged in the European Court. For example, it says:
the holding in any area or place of any public procession or any open-air public meeting is likely to cause…serious disruption to the life of the community; or
this was not in the British legislation—
undue demands to be made upon the police or military forces".
Imagine going to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and trying to defined a position in which it was argued that people could not have the right of assembly, which is guaranteed in the human rights charter and in the United Nations charter, because it placed undue demands on the police or military forces. The Government could not conceivably expect to win that case, and if they cannot expect to win it they should not leave the order unamended. We shall have to change it, and it is no good having to change it in the way that I have described.
I welcome strongly part III relating to stirring up hatred or arousing fear. There has been some difficulty over definition. We had similar problems on racial hatred in the legislation for the rest of Britain, but this is an honourable and good attempt which I want to encourage.
One area which will get the Government into trouble comes under part IV, "Miscellaneous public order offences". Clause 20, entitled
Obstructive sitting, etc., in public place
says;
A person who, by sitting, standing, kneeling, lying down or otherwise conducting himself in a public place, wilfully obstructs or seeks to obstruct traffic or wilfully hinders, or seeks to hinder, any lawful activity shall be guilty of an offence.
I have to say again to the Minister that in Northern Ireland of all places to put that in an order is virtually to invite people to kneel in prayer across the road. What we shall then see is police officers or the military carrying away those people kneeling in prayer and arresting them.

Mr. Scott: Why have they not done it for the many years that this has been an existing part of Northern Ireland legislation?

Mr. Soley: That is a very fair point. The reason why—and this will come as no surprise to the one and only Unionist Member who has been present, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), who was sitting next to me and talking to me about this only a few moments ago—is that they know what is in this order. They are also saying, and they make no secret of it, that they will do their best to make sure that it does not work. I am not putting it in their minds; they are pointing it out to me. That is the difference, and that is why I think that the Minister has to take this on board.
I am utterly amazed and very impressed by article 18, because here I find riotous or disorderly behaviour in a public place attracting a sentence of six months' imprisonment or
a fine not exceeding level 5".
What do we find in the British Act of Parliament for rioting?—10 years. The moral of the story is that if people want a riot they should hold it in Northern Ireland. We had to get the riot sentence down from life to 10 years in Britain, and that is still twice as long as in almost any other country. All the Commonwealth countries and even


the European countries have much shorter periods unless the rioter is found also to he in possession of a weapon such as a gun or a knife. Otherwise the longest sentence that I can recall in a Commonwealth country is about three years and in a European country about 10 years; and then, as I say, the rioter has to be in possession of a weapon. Therefore, in a sense, the Government are being much more realistic about Northern Ireland, but I think that there a message to be conveyed to the Home Secretary, who clearly does not have the same view as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Finally, the repeal of the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 is very welcome and long overdue.
As has been said, there are many good parts in this order, but there are one or two parts that will almost certainly get the Government into trouble. I say quite

categorically that I do not want to see that happen. I think that public order in Northern Ireland is very much more difficult to deal with, for all the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh set out. It is so much more difficult to deal with that we need very different approaches to it. But to do it in this way, which is likely to bring us before the European Court, to be found guilty and have to change the order, and in a way that invites the Unionists, by their own statements, to challenge it, cannot be the best way of legislating. We may well rue the day that we passed an order of this complexity and length after a three-hour or four-hour debate on the Floor of the House. I can understand the Government's difficulties, but unless they take on board some of the points that have been made they will have to change this order sooner or later.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I want to raise five aspects of this order: part III,
Stirring up hatred or arousing fear";
article 9, on threatening behaviour, including by servants of the Crown; article 22, on the carrying of weapons, which would be an offence under this order and indeed has been an offence under a number of orders preceding it going back to 1969; the distribution and publishing of written material, under article 10 of the order; and breach of the peace and riotous behaviour, again by everyone including servants of the Crown.
I particularly want to raise the whole question of enforcement of this order and all orders preceding it which include the same or similar articles, because I think that in carrying this order tonight hon. Members should be conscious of the failure of the Government to bring prosecutions for offences that have previously taken place under these articles. I would have thought that the failure to prosecute on previous occasions would weigh heavily in the minds of hon. Members who have to take a decision tonight in the Division Lobby.
I wish to raise all those articles and part III in general in the context of the allegations that have been made by Major Colin Wallace and Captain Frederick Holroyd, who were working actively in Northern Ireland in the mid-1970s. They have both made a number of major allegations in the press, on radio, on television and in correspondence with Ministers and Members of the House. They have named names, given dates and identified places. They have identified the existence of letters, they have identified witnesses and they have made innumerable statements concerning a campaign of what they call "destabilisation" against the Labour Government of the mid-1970s and politicians of all political persuasions in the House of Commons, but, in particular, politicians in Northern Ireland, equally of all political persuasions. They have referred to a campaign of dirty tricks by the Army, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and security services, using paramilitaries in campaigns of murder and kidnap.
All those matters are dealt with under the four articles that I identified in the order. All those articles have been in existence, as I understand it, in previous orders that have been approved by the House of Commons and been the subject of repeated debate over the years, yet no action is taken.
I do not know whether what those men are saying is true or false. Indeed, I am not convinced that even Ministers know, and I am pretty sure that there are no hon. Members who know. We have not been told, and the only sources of the information are Mr. Wright in an Australian court, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Holroyd and a few other people who refuse to identify themselves publicly, although they have written privately to individual hon. Members setting out their experiences in this area.
Colin Wallace was a senior information officer in Northern Ireland and his work in Northern Ireland has been the subject of credit paid by a great number of people. I do not want to go through them all, because I know that we are short of time. However, the Minister knows that many people are on record as saying what an allegedly excellent man he was in the carrying out of his duties in Northern Ireland. One senior officer who worked closely

with him at Lisburn said that he regarded himself as always on duty, working at least 90 hours a week, and by 1974 had taken no leave for six years. Someone else said of him that he had a knowledge of the Irish situation which was totally unique in headquarters and surpassed—

Mr. Bernard Conlan: I know that my hon. Friend is going to name names—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am not going to name names.

Mr. Conlan: If he is not, that is fine. However, I was going to suggest that if he is going to name names, he has to have the approval of the people concerned.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure that my hon. Friend would pay me the credit of knowing the procedures of the House of Commons.

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the credit with which the person of whom he spoke was regarded in the north of Ireland. Would he include that person's knowledge and possible involvement at administrative level in the Kincora boys' home scandal as being to his credit?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I did not want to stray too much into that area, but I am perfectly willing to answer my hon. Friend. I do not know, and nor does he. That is the trouble with the whole affair; we do not know. That is why—

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman does know the people involved. If he really wants to do a service to society in relation to what he knows, let him get up and name those people who blighted the lives of young people in the Kincora boys' home. I challenge him here and now to give that information to the House.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Much as I would like to be able to please my hon. Friends, I am bound by the strictures of Mr. Deputy Speaker in his intervention to a former hon. Friend of mine who spoke during the course of this debate. If I were to veer into these areas in great detail—which is why I answered my hon. Friend in the way I did—I am sure Mr. Deputy Speaker would be the first to tell me that I am out of order. I have all those names in my possession. I do not reveal them because I do not know the truth. It might well be a slur on the character of those people who have been identified to me if I were to reiterate their names during the debate this evening.
In the light of the experience of hon. Members over the last few months, who have made a point of criticising my activities, I am sure they would be the first to commend me on taking this approach this evening. I wish I could respond to my hon. Friend in a more favourable way, but these matters will surface, as inevitably they must. That is why he, certainly I, many of my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), Conservative Members and others have asked for a full judicial inquiry into all those allegations that have been made by Mr. Wallace.
Mr. Wallace has a credibility problem, because he was convicted at Lewes Crown court of the manslaughter of a 29-year-old Brighton antique dealer, a charge that he has always denied. Mr. Wallace appeared, protested his innocence, tried to appeal. but was refused leave. He went to the Police Complaints Authority. He alleges he was framed. In July 1985 the Prime Minister asked the noble Lord Trefgarne, who was then at the Department of Defence, to reply to some of Mr. Wallace's allegations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech that he would relate his remarks strictly to the order that is before the House. I cannot find any relation in what the hon. Gentleman is now saying to any of the articles in the order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will bring himself into order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure the Chair will understand that, having been drawn in the way I was to talk a little about the character of the people concerned, I had to balance my case by drawing on some other material which I had not wished to raise in any great detail during this debate. That is why I had to refer specifically to Mr. Wallace's credibility.
Mr. Holroyd served as a captain in the Army's military intelligence in Northern Ireland in the mid-1970s. He maintains that, following an argument between MI5 and MI6 in Northern Ireland and the replacement of MI6 by MI5, he was whipped out of Northern Ireland, placed in a military psychiatric hospital unit, where he protested that he should not be placed, and, indeed, was subsequently released therefrom.
An argument has been going on for six years between the hon. Member for Southend, East and the Ministry of Defence as to whether that period should be stricken from Mr. Holroyd's record in so far as he believes that it places an unreasonable slur on his character.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I still find it impossible to relate what the hon. Gentleman is now saying to the order before the House. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to one or other of the articles in the order which we are discussing.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Article 10 of the order deals with the distribution and publication of written material. I understand that article 10 has been in similar orders which have been previously debated and carried by a majority of this House, yet it has not been used in the prosecution of individual servants of the Crown who have carried out acts clearly in default of those articles on previous occasions.
The two gentlemen to whom I have referred, refer specifically to offences under that article. They refer to forged documents, one of which I have in my hand. This is a forged document in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who was then a Minister in Northern Ireland. It is allegedly a quote from a speech, which he never gave, to a Labour party conference. This document has been attributed to the security services. There was no prosecution of any officer in Northern Ireland concerning this document. I should have thought that Ministers would deny at the Dispatch Box that this document was produced by the security services. If they were to do so, there would be no cause for us to raise this matter during this debate.
I have another document, which again would be an offence under article 10. It is allegedly produced by
Merlyn Rees, Stan Orme, David Owen, Paul Rose"—
to quote from the document. It is also a forgery. Why do Ministers not refute these documents? Why do they not deny that the documents could be sourced on the security services? That is a perfectly reasonable request. If Ministers were to to that we would no longer have to raise these matters in the public domain.
I have another document, entitled, "The Labour Movement. Economics — Master or Servant of Mankind?" which is allegedly by

Denis Healey, Tony Benn and Stan Orme.
The sub-title is "Imperialism, Crisis and Revolution", document No. 2, 1971. It is another forgery. Who is producing this material? Publication of these documents is an offence under article 10 of the order. If they are forgeries, let there be prosecutions or let the Minister deny that the security services or servants of the Crown had any responsibility for them.
I have another document, publication of which would be an offence under article 10. Publication is also an offence under similar articles in the 1981 order and in the 1969 order which pre-empted both orders. This document is entitled,
Vote Labour. Ulster is British. Internments, Special Powers, Discrimination, Intimidation, Assassination.
Someone printed that document. It is clearly not a Labour party document. We are entitled to know from where it came.
This is what Mr. Wallace and Mr. Holroyd were alleging. We can either turn our backs on all this and write it off as nonsense, or accept that the Government should make a statement and should not get a junior Minister to reply to an innocuous question placed on the Order Paper by simply saying, "There is nothing to be said." Why not have a substantial statement at the Dispatch Box so that we can deal with this nonsense, if indeed that is what it is?

Mr. James Wallace: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman, who has alleged that there are forgeries and asked why there have not been prosecutions. I am sure that he will be the first to accept that it is one thing to say that something is a forgery and quite another to pin a forgery on a specific person. One cannot say that there must be a prosecution without directing the comment at a specific individual. Does the hon. Gentleman have information about individuals and has he put it in the hands of the responsible authorities?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: According to Mr. Wallace, he provided information in November 1957 to the responsible authorities. He wrote to Mr. Harold Wilson in August 1977 providing information following the security services inquiry which was launched in May 1977. He again provided documents to the Prime Minister on 1 November 1984. The Prime Minister wrote to Lord Trefgarne asking for some response. Mr. Wallace maintains that a response from the Government was not forthcoming.
We do not know who produced these documents. We should know. Prominent people in the Liberal party and in the other half of the alliance have taken a great interest in this matter. People right across the political spectrum want to know what happened.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Name them.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman intervenes, but he would do well to listen. One day they may try to interfere with him.

Mr. Mallon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not find it strange that, to ray knowledge, these gentlemen have not sent any information to Members from Northern Ireland? I would have thought that that would have been an obvious thing to do in relation to accusations concerning Northern Ireland. With regard to the Kincora boys' home, the two gentlemen were centrally placed to know what was happening there. I will


start to believe some of what they say if they show, by their concern for society, that they are prepared to name the people who corrupted the lives of young people. If I have any reason to believe that the names, if given, are valid, I will not show the hon. Gentleman's rectitude or reticence.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I am constrained by my previous experience from revealing names in the House. I ask him to take that on board when he passes judgment on my failure.

Mr. Mallon: It is not the hon. Gentleman's failure; it is their failure.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: They have identified the persons involved and they have been listed, but it is not for me to produce those names during the course of the debate.
Mr. Holroyd maintains that he was recruited by MI6 and he has drawn the attention of the House to many offences under various articles of previous orders which will be updated by this order. He made a number of allegations concerning the John Francis Green affair. He maintains that MI5 eased out MI6 in the mid-1970s and tried for quick military successes. As a result, 10 agents lost their lives in one week. He maintains that the SAS was employing Ulster Volunteer Force members to go over the border and carry out covert activity with the approval of MI5.
Last week Mr. Holroyd gave an interview to Radio Ulster on the "Talkback" programme. That was an important interview. The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) should listen to the tape, as he may learn something from it. I pay tribute to that programme and its producers for the good work they have been doing in the past few weeks. During the course of the interview Mr. Holroyd said that two boys were set up for a murder carried out in the Irish Republic by paramilitaries. One would consider that an allegation of that nature is extremely grave. I do not know whether it is true, but I certainly believe that it should form part of a general statement by Ministers to the House of Commons. In that way we may learn the truth about the affair.
In the interview Mr. Holroyd claims that at least 70 people surround the Kincora and the general dirty tricks campaign—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying again. I cannot relate his remarks to any of the articles in the order before us.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am trying desperately to keep in order; and I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are well aware of that.
Article 22 of the order refers to the carrying of offensive weapons and guns; article 9 refers to threatening behaviour; and article 18 refers to breach of the peace and riotous behaviour. All the articles are to be found in the previous order of 1969—as I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell)—and the order of 1981 which covers the areas that I wish to comment upon.
Mr. Holroyd said that a number of bizarre incidents followed the tours of duty of intelligence and Army people

who have been in Northern Ireland. He says that the security services were sanctioning the use of killer gangs to go over the border in areas reserved, with the agreement of the Republic, for paramilitary activities.
According to Mr. Holroyd, inquiries are taking place. Last week, therefore, I tabled a question asking the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
what investigations are currently taking place into murders and kidnappings by paramilitary organisations in the 1970s.
One would have thought that if there was nothing, the answer would have been "None". No, the reply given was:
I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible."—[Official Report, 5 March 1987, Vol. 111 c. 658.]
Obviously something is happening, otherwise I would have a negative response. It may be that Mr. Holroyd is correct, but no doubt I shall get an honest answer from honest Ministers in time.
During the interview on Radio Ulster last week, Mr. Holroyd said that on one occasion he met Ned Garvey, a Garda commissioner in Dublin. It appears that he was in contact with his subordinates on a number of occasions. He said that the RUC tried repeatedly to cover up what was happening. I am told that two documents exist that will be of especial interest to hon. Members. They are forged bank statements. I have pressed carefully to ensure that the information that I am being given is accurate. They are forged bank statements in the names of the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Foyle (Mr. Hume). I informed the hon. Member for Foyle a week ago that it was likely that I would raise the matter in the Chamber.

Mr. Mallon: Was that the time they both bought a drink?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I told the hon. Member for Foyle that I would be raising the matter when I was satisfied that the documents existed. I can say that they do exist and that they are forgeries. It is reasonable to ask who forged them. On 28 June 1974, the then Prime Minister announced that he was instituting an inquiry into a forged bank statement in the name of the then Mr. Ted Short. It was felt sufficiently important to warrant a statement to the House. If it was good on that occasion, why is it not equally good and important on this occasion? I hope that the Minister will address himself to that issue when he replies. If I agree to produce the documents, will he agree to make a full statement so that we can establish the truth?
I am now coming to the end of my contribution to the debate, which I have much truncated. Last weekend, The Sunday Times, in a report by Mr. Barry Penrose, stated that Mr. Haughey, who is now the leader of the Republic of Ireland, had listened to tapes on Radio Ulster, and that he had then made a statement to the effect that if he became Prime Minister he would establish an inquiry to ascertain whether there was any truth in the allegations of Captain Holroyd and Major Wallace. We understand that Mr. Haughey has been able to form a Government and is now effectively committed to an inquiry into the allegations of Holroyd and Wallace. It will be most curious if he is allowed to follow that route on his own while the British Government, against whose servants the allegations are being made, refuse to act. The Minister should address himself to that when he replies. It seems inevitable that Mr. Haughey will make representations to the British Government with a view to securing an inquiry in the United Kingdom.
If the Holroyd-Wallace accusations or allegations are untrue, if they are a tissue of lies, we have a duty to discover what is motivating those who are orchestrating the campaign. It might be that they want simply to undermine the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but there are those of us on both sides of the House who want to secure its future, if at all possible. There is, therefore, an even greater obligation placed on the Government to establish the truth. The effect of leaving these allegations unanswered in the public domain is to aggravate the possibility of the agreement working.
I urge the Minister to take the opportunity that is open to him to respond. If he cannot give us an undertaking that an inquiry will be set up, at least let him say that we are considering the possibility of setting one up so that at least Mr. Haughey knows that the British are capable of responding in a responsible manner.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Since it has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), may I say how warmly we on this side of the House welcome and congratulate Mr. Haughey on his election as Taoiseach of the Irish Republic today? We wish him well in his endeavours on behalf of the Irish people, in relation to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and in relations with Great Britain.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Workington on his grasp of the order. He was able to take us through the amendments and consolidation of the public order legislation, referring to the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and going as far back as section 9 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968. For that he deserves our congratulations, respect and support. No doubt the Minister will wish in his reply to refer briefly to that speech.
We have often had at the Bar trials within trials. Over the last half hour or so we have had a debate within a debate. I do not seek to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Workington, however great my esteem for him, but I wish to refer to the events which led the Government not only to review the public order legislation but to bring this order before the House.
Two specific events in Northern Ireland over the past year have pre-occupied the people of Northern Ireland, as they have pre-occupied people on the mainland. One, of course, was the marching season, to which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred from his personal experience, and the other was the reaction of the Unionist community to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and their protestations at the time of its signing, and subsequently.
The marching season was long ago turned into a triumphalist parade by the majority towards the minority. The way the marches were routed was not to test the will of the minority but an attempt to impose a will upon the minority. Both sides of the House condemned that at the time and it is one of the reasons why we are considering this order tonight.
There is a curious and paradoxical dichotomy. On the one hand we have the attempt by the Government to bring Northern Irish legislation into line with that of the rest of the United Kingdom. On the other we have the effort to tailor it to the specific conditions that prevail in Northern

Ireland. This is taking place without a single representative of the Ulster Unionists in their places. One is entitled to ask why the Unionists are not here. Is it because they do not want integration with the rest of the United Kingdom? Do they not want the laws to be the same in Northern Ireland as they are on the mainland? Are they integrationist? Are they Unionist? Do they really believe in the Union, or do they not? Do they not wish to maintain the specific and distinctive features which exist in Northern Ireland?
It is a matter of regret that they are not here. It is a matter of regret that we have this order rather than a Bill before the House. It is a matter of regret that there is no Northern Irish assembly to scrutinise these orders before they come here. It is a matter of regret that there are at least 14 empty places in the Chamber when matters relating to the rights of individuals within Northern Ireland are before the House.
It takes some little time to disentangle the various aspects of the order. Does it build upon the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington referred? Can it be reconciled with the European Convention on Human Rights, a point referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley)? Does it add to or detract from the distortions that abound already in Northern Ireland and which express themselves in the Diplock courts, the unashamed use of supergrass evidence in those courts and the emergency provisions legislation which we amended recently in Committee?
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) spoke about the constructive nature of the Committee and described how it went through many of the amendments in a sensible fashion. We pay homage to the Minister of State for his help in that Committee, not only in tidying up the legislation but in seeking to reduce what we saw as some of its worst provisions.
I shall turn briefly to the distortions in democracy as we know it in Northern Ireland. The Army is there playing a peculiar role — that of an army acting in a civil capacity by assisting the police, and also in a military capacity in combating terrorism. The Army is doing that with the assistance of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
No one would wish to see a repeat of the events that occurred during last year's marching season when homes of the minority community were pillaged and looted. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh spoke about the village of Kilkeel in which some of these events took place. In other parts of Northern Ireland members of the RUC were forced out of their homes by intimidation because they had done their duty to the state by seeking to protect people from attack. The police themselves saw their homes attacked and damaged.
In his speech — which seems to have been made a long time ago — the Secretary of State spoke about intimidation. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh also spoke about that. Intimidation is a tragic aspect of life in Northern Ireland and it is certainly heightened during the marching season. As I said earlier, there have also been protests against the Anglo-Irish agreement. The history of that agreement has been a sorry one in the sense of the reaction by the Unionist community, but the Opposition have always maintained, and the Government have said, that peaceful and constitutional demonstrations and


actions against that agreement are acceptable. We do not support the aims of constitutional opposition to the agreement, but we understand it.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) spoke about statements from Northern Ireland. Those statements do nothing at all to ease the situation in the Province. The recent statement that constitutional resistance is at an end may be hyperbole or rhetoric, but it does nothing to dampen the sense and the dangerous effervescence of violence that is part and parcel of the Northern Irish community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith spoke about the European Convention on Human Rights. I shall speak briefly about the contention that articles 3, 4 and 5 are a breach of that convention. That view was carefully and solidly put forward by the National Council for Civil Liberties. The Government did the NCCL the courtesy of responding at some length to its arguments. Some of the points made by the NCCL were accepted in the Government critique, some were satisfactorily answered and others remain disputed.
Broadly, the Government's view is that article 11 of the convention specifically accepts that restrictions may be placed on the exercise of the rights of peaceful assembly if they are
necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith spoke about the dangers that are likely to ensue if the order goes through unamended, as it must, and the danger that in future that might bring us face to face with the European Court of Human Rights. Although the Minister of State may not have a great deal of time available when replying, it would be of specific assistance to the Opposition if he were able to speak about that.
I mentioned earlier the speech by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes about the Committee stage of the emergency provisions Bill. He also spoke about the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh also spoke about that Act and called it an anachronism. Section 2 of the Act empowered a police officer to require the removal of any emblem other than the Union flag if he believed that its display might cause a breach of the peace.
As the Secretary of State said, the Act is redundant because, first, its repeal was recommended by the Standing Commission on Human Rights. Secondly — I have another small plug for the Labour party—it has long been advocated by the Labour Opposition. I shall let the Secretary of State and the Minister into a little secret. It was part and parcel of our 1983 manifesto. We are glad that the Government are pursuing their own election commitments and those of the Labour party.
The essence of the order deals with the serious problems of Northern Ireland—problems such as public disorder, serious property damage, and serious disruption to community life of which we are aware and which we regret. Those matters were touched upon by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and by other hon. Members. It is a great sadness for Opposition Members to know that the democracy that those in Northern Ireland should have and do have cannot be enjoyed to the full because of such disruptions.
The Opposition ask whether the order represents an accretion of greater power to the state. Does it take too much away from the individual? The hon. Member for Mossley Hill called it a curate's egg. That phrase went through my mind when I read the order and the notes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West said, many matters in the order are acclaimed and supported by Opposition Members, but we must look at two fundamental points. One is the balance of individual civil rights in relation to the powers of the state. In this connection, I refer to the Secretary of State, who has greater power in Northern Ireland than in this country. If we were dealing with a public order Act in our country, one might have recourse to local councils, but in this case one's recourse is to the Secretary of State.
The first matter that greatly concerns us is whether we have tipped the balance away from the individual in Northern Ireland towards the state. The second is whether the order should have been in the form of a Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West made—without flattering him in any way—a remarkable speech. He had to encompass what, in effect was a Second Reading speech dealing with the principle, Committee stage speeches on various aspects, a speech on Report and a Third reading commendation. To do that in half an hour was a parliamentary feat. As the Secretary of State said, we lawyers will and should stick together.
The two questions that we have asked—first, whether the order goes towards the state as against the individual and, secondly, whether it should be a proper Bill—lead us to the conclusion that it is right and appropriate for the Opposition to divide the House.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Nicholas Scott): At the outset, I echo the congratulations expressed by hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench and by my right hon. and hon. Friends to Mr. Haughey on his election as Taoiseach. I look forward to working with the new administration in Dublin, in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, and indeed, of the people of the island of Ireland.
I shall respond to most, if not all, of the points that are relevant to the order. Obviously, I mean no criticism of the Chair when I say that, at times, hon. Members seemed to stray slightly beyond the bounds of the matters that are directly relevant to the order. Before I refer to the detailed points that were raised by right hon. and hon. Members, I shall address the question why we are considering an order rather than a Bill. Of course, I recognise the legislative advantages that can flow from consideration of a Bill.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) kindly referred to the Committee stage of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. I think that this is the first time that homage has been paid to me on the Floor of the House; I hope that it will not be the last. I am grateful for the tribute. We had a good Committee stage on that Bill, and it has come out of Committee better than it was when it went in. However, we have to decide whether it is right in all the circumstances to legislate for Northern Ireland by Bill. On balance, the answer has to be no, not least because Parliament would be overwhelmed by that procedure.

Mr. Archer: rose—

Mr. Scott: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to finish this point, and then I shall certainly give way to him.
The difference between the emergency provisions legislation and this order and other orders that come before the House is that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill comes into the category of legislation that has to be dealt with by Bill. Were we to deal with transferred and reserved matters by means of Bills rather than orders, we should be overwhelmed with them. In 1983, for example, there were 17 affirmative Northern Ireland Orders in Council; in 1984 there were 14; in 1985 there were 13; and in 1986 there were 19. Most of them made substantially different provision for Northern Ireland than for the rest of the United Kingdom. It would be quite impossible to ask the House of Commons to deal with all those matters by means of Bills.

Mr. Archer: We on these benches are certainly not saying that all Northern Ireland legislation should be dealt with by means of Bills. Our complaint is that the Government have failed to distinguish between the legislation that should be dealt with by means of Bills and the legislation that quite properly could be dealt with by order.

Mr. Scott: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman should ever come to this side of the Dispatch Box, he would find that it is not easy to draw a distinction between those matters that are dealt with by means of Bills rather than orders. We may all have different views about the relative importance of individual pieces of legislation. Very careful consideration would be needed before one began to go down that road.

Mr. Michael Brown: I take my hon. Friend's point that many additional burdens would be placed upon the House, but will he speculate on how many Scottish Bills have come before the House during the Sessions to which he referred?

Mr. Scott: Mercifully, that is not my responsibility. However, I take issue with my hon. Friend and, indeed, with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West who defined this as a take-it-or-leave-it procedure. I accept that now that we have reached this stage of the order it is unamendable and that the House has either to take it or leave it, but it is right to draw attention to the consultation procedures.
I do not believe that six weeks is too short a period. It is the normal consultation period on orders. Organisations and individuals who fall just outside the period of six weeks before they put forward their views always have them taken into account by Ministers before decisions are taken about the final shape of the orders.
I regret very much that there has not been the benefit of consideration of this order by the Northern Ireland Assembly. An important part of the consideration of this order ought to have been undertaken by that assembly. It was not our wish that the Government had no alternative but to dissolve the Northern Ireland Assembly.
There are opportunities to discuss in Committee forthcoming legislation affecting Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have made it clear on a number of occasions that we are prepared to consider ways in

which we can improve the consideration of Northern Ireland legislation by Order in Council. We are open to suggestions, through the usual channels, from Northern Ireland parties and from others. We understand the resentment that can arise about some aspects of the present procedures as they affect important pieces of legislation.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley. West and a number of other hon. Members referred to the requirement to give notice of the number of people who are likely to take part in any procession under the parades and marches provisions of the order—article 3, which also deals with offences. This requirement is not unique to Northern Ireland. It is to be found also in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. The whole purpose a the information about the numbers likely to take part in a parade is to assist the police in planning the policing of processions and to give them advance notice of the organisers' judgment about the numbers likely to take part.
Article 3(5)(a) makes it an offence to take part in or organise a procession of which the required notice has riot been given in the time and manner required. Article 3(5)(b) makes it an offence to organise or take part in a procession held on a date or at a time or on a route different from that given in the notice. Those matters are under the control of the organisers of a parade. We fully recognise that the numbers taking part are not under the control of the organisers. Therefore, it would be wrong to penalise the organisers if, for example, more members of the public turned up than they had estimated. That would not be an offence, but the other matters clearly would be under the order.
A point has been raised about including those who take part in the sanctions provisions of the order which, in a sense, is directed mainly against the organisers. However, in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland—the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will certainly recognise this — it is necessary to make participants liable for an offence as it may well be impossible to identify the organisers of illegal processions. It would then be appropriate for the police to seek to make amenable any ringleaders whom they could identify in any particular parade. That is not a new provision; it has been part of Northern Ireland legislation since 1970.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and others have raised the question whether the police should be prepared to give advance notice of their intention to impose conditions. As a variation on that, some hon. Members raised the question whether it was appropriate that the police should be the people to impose those conditions and whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or some other authority should have that duty put on them. However, that would be totally impracticable in the circumstances of Northern Ireland. Not infrequently, the police have to impose such conditions at the last minute, taking into account all the circumstances of the march, the likely reaction of the local community, the numbers assembling for the march and a whole range of other matters that only a senior police officer on the spot could properly take into account. It would be impossible to provide that flexibility of response if those decisions were to be taken in advance by policemen, and still less by Ministers or some other tribunal who might have that responsibility put upon them.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also raised the issue of the wearing of political uniforms in a public place. Again, I make it absolutely clear that article 21 makes no change in the existing law in Northern Ireland. The wearing of political uniforms in public places or at public meetings has been an offence there since 1970. Indeed, the provision is based on the Public Order Act 1936. It would be for the courts to determine whether any particular item of clothing constituted a uniform within the purpose of legislation. The discretion and common sense of the courts about such matters is well recognised in the United Kingdom as a whole, and to seek to define rigidly what a uniform does or does not do would swiftly be overtaken by events.
Several hon. Members have referred to the European convention on human rights and its relevance to the order. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough made clear, article 11 of the convention specifically recognises that restrictions may be placed on the exercise of the rights of peaceful assembly, if they are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others. The Government's clear view is that the draft order is within the terms of the convention.

Mr. Soley: Will the Minister tell us what he thinks would not be breached under article 5, which states that undue demand could be made on the police or military forces?

Mr. Scott: I am not a lawyer, but where the demands of policing particular demonstrations or processions were likely to divert the police from other duties in the interests of public safety, we would have a good case for arguing that we were acting within the terms of the convention.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether the recital by the Secretary of State should be conclusive in terms of the courts. We are not fearful of any judicial review of a decision on these matters. In the special circumstances of Northern Ireland—this has happened more than once since I have had responsibility for these matters—it may be necessary to take decisions about political processions on the basis of information which it would be impossible to produce in court. Therefore, this is a proper provision in the order.
I was asked whether it would be right that notice by organisers should be served by post or in person. The legislation on this side of the water provides for such notice to be given by post rather than in person because a procession may well go through more than one police area. The whole of Northern Ireland is a single police area, so it is right that the notice should be given by the organisers to the nearest appropriate police station to the beginning of any procession, not least because that gives the organisers of the parade and the RUC a chance to get together and have an initial discussion about the parade, the likely scale of policing and the possibility of perhaps arranging with consent, rather than imposing, any conditions.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said that he had to swallow hard about some of the provisions, but that on balance he came down in favour of them. All of us are nervous when we legislate on public order. Several times the point was made about the balance between individual

freedom and the need to preserve public safety. We know how the parades and marches in Northern Ireland can lead to disorder, disruption, intimidation and damage and I believe that we have the balance in response to those dangers right.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of the exemptions for the BBC and IBA under broadcasting provisions and asked about their application to Radio Telefis Eireann. The offence in relation to broadcasting under article 12 occurs at the point of transmission, not reception, so RTE broadcasts from the Republic are not within the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland courts.

Mr. Mallon: The Minister will be aware that RTE also broadcasts and transmits from Belfast.

Mr. Scott: Although RTE records and transmits in Belfast, it transmits the programmes back to its headquarters in the Republic, and the actual transmissions emanate from the Republic. That is my understanding of the technical aspect of that question.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said that he shared the general concern for human rights expressed by several hon. Members and went on to ask about the importance of the RUC's liaison with the local community. I wholeheartedly echo his anxiety and I long to see the early introduction of liaison committees between the police and the elected representatives and to see them flourishing and playing a useful part. However, until the elected representatives of the two main Unionist parties are willing to resume their full range of responsibilities in local government, those developments are unlikely to occur.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about street names and, by implication, wider matters about the role of the Irish language in Northern Ireland. The Government are still considering those matters.

Mr. Alton: The Minister will recall that I asked about the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1947, which outlaws the use of Gaelic signs on the streets of Belfast and is often linked with the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954. Can he tell us when he may introduce an order to deal with that prohibition?

Mr. Scott: It is not as simple as that. If one were to repeal that Act without introducing any sort of scheme, there could be anarchy in these matters. That merits careful consideration and we are giving it careful consideration, but it is too early to say exactly how we may move.
Before I close, I want to take issue with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). He was generous in his praise of the RUC and the way in which it performed in scenes of public disorder last summer. It is not true to say that that was the first time that the RUC had behaved in such a way. Throughout recent years, in the marching season, the RUC has distinguished itself and made enormous efforts, in an impartial way, to maintain public order on both sides of the community. It should not be suggested that that is a recent development in terms of the RUC's behaviour.
I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Hammersmith that pickets fall within the definition of open-air meetings. A police officer would be able to


impose conditions in the likelihood of serious public disorder if the rigorous tests in article 4(2) were met. That would apply to picketing and other matters.
The order addresses three important matters in Northern Ireland. It seeks to establish a set of conditions and responses for the police to the problem of parades and marches, which my right hon. Friend outlined at the outset of the debate. The vast majority of parades and marches in Northern Ireland pass off without serious disorder, but a minority can cause acute public order problems. The Chief Constable of the RUC has drawn attention to that in all his reports during this decade.
Part II of the order seeks broadly to follow the British legislation with regard to incitement to hatred, and in particular to remove the need to prove intent. We are seeking to remove from the statute book the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, which is redundant.
I am as conscious as anybody that, when considering public order legislation, we have to find the right balance between individual liberties and giving the police the powers that they need to protect society or substantial minorities in a particular society, from disorder, disturbance and distress. In Northern Ireland the balance must be struck at a slightly different point. We all regret that, but it is a fact of life. The penalties of striking the wrong point on either side are great.
The debate has demonstrated the concern that is felt by hon. Members about the need to get the balance right. It has been a constructive and useful debate. However, I have not been persuaded that we need to withdraw the order because I do not believe that we have got it wrong.
I regret that it looks likely that we shall have a Division. I believe that there is a great deal of common consent in the House about what we need to do in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland on the three matters under consideration. I hope that it will be possible for us not to divide the House because of the importance of this matter and the need, wherever possible, for the House to come to a consensus view about the actions that we should take in this sensitive area of individual liberty in Northern Ireland. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let it be shown that the Minister has refused to answer any of the allegations that were made during the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is not a matter for the Chair.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 106.

Division No. 114]
[11.28 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Carttiss, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Cash, William


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Conway, Derek


Alton, David
Coombs, Simon


Amess, David
Cope, John


Batiste, Spencer
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dorrell, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Farr, Sir John


Best, Keith
Favell, Anthony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fletcher, Sir Alexander


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Forman, Nigel


Buck, Sir Antony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Forth, Eric





Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Moynihan, Hon C.


Franks, Cecil
Murphy, Christopher


Freeman, Roger
Nelson, Anthony


Galley, Roy
Neubert, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Newton, Tony


Glyn, Dr Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Gow, Ian
Onslow, Cranley


Gower, Sir Raymond
Osborn, Sir John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Ground, Patrick
Portillo, Michael


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Powley, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Raffan, Keith


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Rathbone, Tim


Hayward, Robert
Renton, Tim


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Heddle, John
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Henderson, Barry
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hirst, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Ryder, Richard


Holt, Richard
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Howard, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Scott, Nicholas


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jackson, Robert
Silvester, Fred


Jessel, Toby
Sims, Roger


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Speed, Keith


Key, Robert
Spencer, Derek


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Stern, Michael


Knowles, Michael
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lang, Ian
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lawrence, Ivan
Sumberg, David


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lester, Jim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Terlezki, Stefan


Lord, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Lyell, Nicholas
Thurnham, Peter


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Tracey, Richard


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maclean, David John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


McLoughlin, Patrick
Waddington, Rt Hon David


McQuarrie, Albert
Wallace, James


Major, John
Waller, Gary


Mallon, Seamus
Ward, John


Malone, Gerald
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Marlow, Antony
Watts, John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Mather, Sir Carol
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Maude, Hon Francis
Wheeler, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wolfson, Mark


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wood, Timothy


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Woodcock, Michael


Meadowcroft, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Moate, Roger



Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tellers for the Ayes:


Moore, Rt Hon John
Mr. David Lightbown and


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Mr. Tony Durant.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Birmingham, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Bidwell, Sydney


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Boyes, Roland


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Beggs, Roy
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Bell, Stuart
Caborn, Richard


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)






Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clarke, Thomas
Loyden, Edward


Clay, Robert
McCrea, Rev William


Clelland, David Gordon
McCusker, Harold


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McGuire, Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cohen, Harry
McNamara, Kevin


Conlan, Bernard
McWilliam, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Madden, Max


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Maginnis, Ken


Crowther, Stan
Maxton, John


Dalyell, Tam
Michie, William


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Nellist, David


Deakins, Eric
O'Brien, William


Dixon, Donald
Paisley, Rev Ian


Dormand, Jack
Patchett, Terry


Dubs, Alfred
Pendry, Tom


Duffy, A. E. P.
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Eadie, Alex
Prescott, John


Eastham, Ken
Redmond, Martin


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Robertson, George


Fatchett, Derek
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Fisher, Mark
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry E)


Flannery, Martin
Rowlands, Ted


Forrester, John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Skinner, Dennis


Foulkes, George
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


George, Bruce
Soley, Clive


Godman, Dr Norman
Strang, Gavin


Golding, Mrs Llin
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hogg, N, (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Tinn, James


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Home Robertson, John
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Hoyle, Douglas
Welsh, Michael


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Winnick, David


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Kilfedder, James A.



Lamond, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Leighton, Ronald
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Litherland, Robert
Mr. Tony Lloyd.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at to-morrow's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the Motor Vehicle Industry may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock, and at that hour, if proceedings thereon have not been previously disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall put any Questions necessary to dispose of them; and if the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Channon relating to Industrial Development is then made, Mr. Speaker shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), put forthwith the Question thereon. — [Mr. Portillo]

PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
That Mr. Solicitor-General be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and Mr. Attorney-General be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Casualty Unit, Ancoats Hospital, Manchester

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Mr. Robert Litherland: I welcome the opportunity provided by this Adjournment debate to raise the future of Ancoats hospital in my constituency.
On Monday 11 August 1828 Ancoats hospital opened its doors and established itself as a medical centre. On Sunday 1 February 1987 at 9 am the doors closed on the casualty unit, thus ending a magnificent period of medical history in that part of Manchester. Simultaneously, a number of local residents made the spontaneous gesture of occupying the waiting room and declaring a sit-in in an effort to save a hospital that was dear to their hearts and recognised as part of their heritage.
When one reads the history of Ancoats hospital, one finds that it was set up in 1828 for the purpose of providing a medical dispensary. The reason for that was that the poor had been subjected to the expense of their time and financial loss by having to travel considerable distances to the Manchester infirmary. That loss almost equalled the value of the medicine that was dispensed. Therefore, by establishing a medical dispensary in Ancoats that severe inconvenience for a deprived population would be removed.
Now, in 1987, the area is still suffering from acute deprivation and the people occupying Ancoats hospital are fighting for the same cause. They are fighting for the provision of a casualty unit for people who can ill-afford to travel long distances to receive medical treatment.
Those people have an affinity with Ancoats hospital. They are well aware of its magnificent reputation and are willing to foresake their normal everyday living activities just to sit-in and sleep in cramped conditions. Their purpose is to save a hospital of which they are proud. Those actions and their voices should be taken into consideration. They have a right to be consulted. Regrettably, consultation is not the strong point of the district health authority, and the local community and other interested bodies, including the trade unions and local elected representatives, were not consulted. Closure was a fait accompli.
It has always been recognised and accepted policy that adequate alternative arrangements would be made before the closure at Ancoats took place. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) would readily inform the Minister that that is far from the case and the casualty provision at North Manchester general hospital is, to say the least, in an appalling condition and totally inadequate.
The chairman of the district health authority has written to inform me of the intolerable burden now being imposed on the Manchester Royal infirmary and emphasises that this hospital cannot cope with the extra workload since the closure of the Ancoats casualty unit. The closure has inevitably increased the workload of the Manchester Royal infirmary, which has now become the only remaining city-centre accident and emergency department.
In 1986 the Manchester Royal infirmary treated 43,286 new patients and 7,071 follow-up patients—a total of


50,357 patients. In the same year Ancoats accident and emergency department treated 25,656 new patients and 11,611 follow-up patients — a total of 37,267. It is estimated that the additional resources needed by the Manchester Royal infirmary will cost about £189,000 if that hospital is to meet the extra commitments. Additional funding will be essential for new nursing, medical and clerical staff, security, consumables, wardrobes and extra beds for the in-patient facilities.
Sir John Page, the chairman of the regional health centre, informed me by telephone that he was urging the Royal College of Surgeons not to withdraw its licence from Ancoats, and that he was also consulting Professor Moore, the chairman of North Manchester district health authority, in an effort to delay the closure until alternative and adequate arrangements had been made. Regrettably the closure went ahead.
It is the easiest thing in the world to run down an activity by just starving it of resources. This is what happened at Ancoats hospital. Closure took place in spite of the fact that the building of a nucleus hospital on the site of the North Manchester general hospital, intended to provide a new accident and emergency department, will not commence for four or five years.
Closure went ahead in spite of a number of ambiguities in Professor Sherrard's report to the hospital recognition committee, which advocated the withdrawal of recognition. The report, seen from a different perspective, could have suggested that the upgrading of Ancoats hospital was essential. In any case, we submit that the Royal College of Surgeons took a hasty decision. Have they gone into it in depth and taken into consideration the view of the ambulance emergency service, which is in full support of the action of local residents?
In the past the ambulance emergency service relied upon Ancoats hospital, which had a stabilising unit and staff on hand specifically for such cases as heart failure. Regrettably, the ambulance service will now have to travel far longer distances and patients will have to be attended to while they are actually in the vehicles. It will he a struggle for ambulance crews to care for patients because they do not have trained staff and because they have depended on the existence of Ancoats emergency hospital to provide this back-up service.
Another stipulation that was laid down by the representative from the Royal College of Surgeons for approval of the casualty unit was the amount of time considered necessary for the arrival of an ambulance in response to a 999 call. This was given as 15 minutes. The ambulance service points out that it is now down to eight ambulances right across the city operating from 6 p.m. to 8 a.m., including weekends. The ambulance service states categorically that, with its limited number of vehicles, it could never guarantee arrival to a call within the time specified by the RCS.
I have received many letters of support for this aim. Mr. Dafforne, who was general superintendent and secretary of Ancoats hospital for 21 years and who feels strongly about the closure, has written:
The Royal College of Surgeons requires a hospital to give a good general basis of experience to help the young doctors to qualify for the RCS exams if they so wish. Ancoats Hospital has provided that for decades and has thus been recognised in the past by the RCS.

Two or three years ago the so-called planners and bureaucrats removed General Medicine and General Surgery from Ancoats. So for the first time since 1872 Ancoats ceased to be a general hospital.
Likewise, East Man chester has lost its general hospital and had to depend on Crumpsall Hospital for all hospital services except orthopaedics and a little ENT unit.
Dafforne said that north Manchester general — Crumpsall hospital—
serves North Manchester 'well, but never has it and never will it serve East Manchester.
In a foreword to a booklet to mark the 150th anniversary of the hospital, the reveed Sir Harry Platt, professor of orthopaedics surgery, president of the Royal College of Surgeons and honorary surgeon of Ancoats hospital, said:
I count myself one of those on whom, in his formative years, Ancoats conferred many blessings. So, with others, I salute our hospital in this year now one hundred and fifty years old; but young in spirit and in endeavour, and with a great future before it.
Another contributor to the foreword said:
Finally, I hope and pray that Ancoats Hospital will maintain its spirit of "care" and long remain to serve the people of Manchester.
Sir Harry died recently, but I should have loved to know his thoughts on the closure. That pride continues with the latest generation. Young and old, people from all walks of life, are imploring the Minister not to hide behind the autonomy of the Royal College of Surgeons—the cover behind which the management has taken refuge—but to take action to re-open Ancoats casualty unit so that it can offer a vital service to an area of great deprivation and to the industrial and commercial sectors of Manchester. We trust that the Government will not do a Pontius Pilate on this matter and say that they have no responsibility over the Royal College of Surgeons. The Government have a responsibility for proper health care. There is tremendous unity of will to keep the hospital open. Thousands of voices are echoing to Harry Platt's wish that Ancoats should have a great future before it. The people will look carefully at the Government's proposals. They will look carefully at the Government's reaction to this debate and to their plea. Aricoats still means a lot to many people. I ask the Minister to use her office to get the bodies involved together to com;ider re-opening Ancoats hospital

Mr. Ken Eastham: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Does the hon. Member have the agreement of the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) and of the Minister to intervene?

Mr. Litherland: indicated assent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): indicated assent.

Mr. Eastham: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) for his vigilance and attention to the difficult problem with which he has been dealing over the past few weeks. The dedicated staff of Ancoats, have shown, with my hon. Friend, their determination to fight this battle with the Department and the regional health authority. My hon. Friend has received little consideration from the regional health authority in the representations that he has made. We are extremely disappointed and our only option is to turn to the Minister in the hope that there will be some form of reconciliation and reconsideration.
The closure of Ancoats hospital will not improve the casualty services for the central or northern part of Manchester, which I have the honour to represent. The Minister will be aware from the brief that casualties will be transferred to the Crumpsall hospital in north Manchester, in my constituency. Crumpsall hospital is over 110 years old. It is obsolete and has many problems.
The closure of Ancoats hospital will compound those problems. It will also cause probl ems to casualties because of transfer difficulties. Time is of the essence when people are in desperate need of medica1 attention. When one considers the peak periods of traffic and the normal congestions, the resultant delays to some of the emergencies may be extremely imp ortant. There may be a price to pay—fatalities.
If the regional health authority decided to go ahead to close Ancoats, one would have thought that proper prior arrangements would be made. However, no such arrangements have been made. All that has been said is that Manchester Royal infirmary and Crumpsall will take the extra casualties.
In my correspondence with the regional health authority I have already pointed out the. problems at Crumpsall. It has said that it intends to all ocate an extra £250,000 to improve the inadequate casualty provision at Crumpsall. It would have been logical if, first and foremost, the authority had made arrangements concerning the building needs and then made t he decision to transfer casualty services. Unfortunately, the authority has allocated the money far too late and one wonders what will be obtained for that £250,000.

Mr. Michael Portillo: The Minister will not have much time to reply.

Mr. Eastham: The Minister will have plenty of time; we are dealing with only one hospital.
I hope that the Minister will not say that the Government have allocated £17 million f br the first phase of the rebuilding programme. We already know that. But it will be two or three years before Crumpsall will be in an adequate state. We are worried about the present position. Provisions are inadequate at the MRI and at Crumpsall and thus all kinds of stresses and strains are being placed on the services in Manchester.
I hope that the Minister will not say that the Government are improving the National Health Service in Manchester and the north-west — that is not true. Everyone in the city will condemn such a statement from the Minister. I hope that he will reconsider this matter with a view to saying that a mistake may have been made and a new instruction will be given to the regional health authority.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) on his success in the ballot that gives us a brief opportunity to discuss what is happening at Ancoats and what the district and regional health authorities are proposing.
I join the hon. Gentleman in his tribute to Sir Harry Platt, who died recently. He was probably one of the most

distinguished people in medicine and surgery that the country has ever produced. He was held in great affection and will be sadly missed.
I appreciate also the comments of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham). I am sure that the issues that he has raised will be taken into account by the district health authority and the regional health authority in the formal consultation, which is yet to begin, on the proposals that are now before them.
Ancoats hospital was opened in 1828 and has seen various changes during its lifetime. The accident and emergency department was opened in 1971 and, as has been rightly said, in 1985 there were about 27,000 new attendances there and nearly 40,000 attendances in all. However, A and E is not the only work done at the hospital. The bulk of the work done there is trauma and orthopaedic, with over 100 beds, and it is highly valued. It is linked with the rheumatology work.
The problem that faces the district and regional health authorities is to determine how Ancoats is to continue serving the community of the hon. Member for Manchester, Central. It is a small site, and it is bounded on three sides by factories and the Rochdale canal. There are major roads—Old Mill street and Pollard street—at the back and the front of the hospital, and that rather limits what one might like to do in a modern hospital on any rebuilding. Secondly, although a housing estate is across the road, the area is zoned by Manchester city council as an industrial and commercial improvement area. Therefore, one might expect that the population shift that has rather denuded some of the area will not be halted and may well continue.
Most important, the hospital lacks the back-up facilities that a modern accident and emergency facility requires. There is no intensive care unit, no coronary care unit and no blood bank. There are no general surgery beds or general medical beds. All such patients requiring hospitalisation require transfer to other hospitals if they come in through the A and E department at Ancoats. They have required such transfer for some time.
There are other A and E departments in the north Manchester district, especially at North Manchester general hospital and Booth Hall children's hospital, both of which have been quite busy. Booth Hall typically deals with about 22,000 or 23,000 attenders and the North Manchester general hospital has been dealing with over 40,000. The facility at Ancoats has been one within the area but not the major one.
Ancoats cannot admit emergency cases to medical or surgical beds and the ambulance service tells us that it cannot guarantee that roads will be clear and that swift transfer will be possible. This obviously might involve some risk to patients. I take the points that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central has made about the ambulance service, and I have no doubt that any permanent closure proposals will take that into account.
In 1969, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Central probably knows, the DHSS issued a hospital building note. That was done under a Labour Government. The note gave guidance to health authorities on the planning of accident and emergency services, and there are two particular things that are of interest. It reads:
An accident and emergency department should be part of a hospital which also provides supporting inpatient beds. The department is primarily concerned with patients who are victims of accidents, including head injuries and burns,


locomoter injuries, thoracic, abdominal and vascular injuries, sudden illness and poisoning … Many accident and emergency departments also deal at present with large numbers of casual attenders suffering from minor illnesses or injuries, though care of these should come increasingly within the province of the work of the general practitioner.
That was the guidance that was being issued nearly 20 years ago by a Labour Government. It still seems sensible, and it was an issue before the Ancoats A and E department opened in 1971.
Subsequent reorganisation, which the hon. Member for Manchester, Central rightly described, ended up with the swapping around of beds from the orthopaedic department at the North Manchester general hospital, with the general medicine and general surgical beds going to that hospital instead. As a result, the Royal College of Surgeons, over a period of about 18 months, has been protesting and stating that the surgical facilities are no longer up to the training standards that it would expect.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Central talked about the report of Professor Sherrard including ambiguities and being hasty. I think that the Royal College of Surgeons and I would reject those criticisms. It was hardly hasty as the discussions have been going on over about 18 months. As for ambiguities, I can do no more than quote exactly from the report that Professor Sherrard sent to the Royal College hospital recognition committee, which met on 30 September 1986. He started by describing the A and E department position as "somewhat anomalous". He said that it is "well furnished and equipped" and that it
is clearly a happy department and the junior staff do acquire knowledge and experience largely by virtue of seeing many patients, together with some minimal tuition but the teaching is not adequate. It may well be improved when the new consultant comes into post"—
of course, we now have that—
but the situation as the whole of the department is a very unsatisfactory one. At the weekends the SHOs are virtually on their own, and if they receive General Medical or Surgical patients in dire straits, there is no one but them to look after them or keep them alive, or even to decide about their transfer. I was told that ambulances could take as long as 2 hours to come for such a patient. The A &amp; E SHOs themselves were very unhappy about the situation and it is probably only a matter of time before a serious problem occurs that might have medico-legal consequences. There is no feedback mechanism by which the Casualty Officers know whether the diagnosis and management they have made was Correct in respect of non-Orthopaedic cases. There is no observation Ward … A possible rotation between the A &amp; E Department at Ancoats and North Manchester General Hospital would improve things, but would still not make the Ancoats section acceptable or satisfactory.
He concluded his report as follows:
Recognition should be withdrawn forthwith from the A &amp; F. posts when the holders who are about to commence in August 1986 have completed their term of appointment. The A &amp; E service should cease by the closure of the department for that purpose and the patient load transferred, either to Manchester Royal Infirmary or to the North Manchester General Hospital. North Manchester General Hospital will need to have an immediate temporary expansion and SHOs at Ancoats could transfer to that hospital — which would be an improvement, both as regards training and economy.

Mr. Litherland: I also have the document from which the hon. Lady has been reading. Has she seen the letter which highlights the ambiguities in that report? If not, shall I send her a copy?

Mrs. Currie: I would be delighted to receive anything that the hon. Gentleman wants to send me. I merely say that what I have read is about as unambiguous as anything could be.
As on 25 November 1986 the Royal College of Surgeons withdrew recognition for the training of junior medical staff from 1 February 1987, the district health authority had very little choice, except as an emergency and on the temporary procedures, but to close the A and E department from 1 February 1987. Procedurally the closure is temporary while consultation takes place. I understand that the district health authority hopes to approve a document about the form of consultation at its meeting tomorrow.
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that in these circumstances no junior doctor in those specialties can work in that A and E section. The only way it can be staffed with medical staff is by consultants and by general practitioners. Both of those possibilities, I understand, are covered in the consultation document of which I have had foresight.
It follows, therefore, that the old A and E department is not an option. No responsible authority and no doctor would or can ignore the Royal College of Surgeons. It is not a question of absolving myself from the responsibility. The Royal College of Surgeons sets the standards for us and we have to take note of them. We should be looking to the future and trying to ensure that the legitimate needs, requirements and requests of the hon. Gentleman's constituents are met, both for accident and emergency provision and for everything else.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State was apprised of the position when he was in the neighbourhood on 10 February. He met the leader of the protest group, Mrs. Anne Dobson. He is taking a close interest in what is going to happen.
The hon. Member for Blackley asked me not to say that we have a lot more money going into the neighbourhood. He knows that that is true. He knows that spending in North Manchester has grown from £47 million to £54 million last year. I believe he knows that £50,000 extra has recently been allocated for waiting list money in that neighbourhood, which will help a large number of patients, and £450,000 extra from the RAW P bridging fund to enable that district, and many other districts in that region, to catch up better than they have been able to do.
Last week my hon. Friend the Minister of State announced the approval in principle of a £17·5 million phase 1 redevelopment at North Manchester general hospital, and part of that redevelopment will be the new accident and emergency department. The extension will be opened in September, and in its consultation document the DHA proposes that that development should be its top priority. We hope that the result will be a vastly improved accident and emergency service for the north Manchester district that should take into account many of the worries of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.